ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, March 10, 2019

Slower, please

Or much better yet, not at all. Bill Lind considers the latest neocon push for war with Iran:
Last week’s most important news event received remarkably little press.  According to the February 14 New York Times, shortly after landing in Poland for a major international conference, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu committed truth.

No sooner had he landed that the prime minister’s Twitter account announced “an open meeting with representatives of leading Arab countries, that are sitting down together with Israel in order to advance the common interest of war with Iran.”

In case anyone doubts that this was a case of committing truth, the Times reported that “An hour later, the Twitter posting was changed to ‘advance the common interest of combating Iran.’”

So Israel wants war with Iran, and so do several Arab states with loud voices in Washington, especially Saudi Arabia.  From an American perspective, the problem is that both the Israelis and the Saudis will want the United States to fight the war for them.

This promises to be the Iraq war all over again.  American neocons were major players then in devising a new strategy for the destruction of every Arab country that could be a threat to the Jewish state.  Iraq was first on the list.  But then, as now, America was supposed to do the fighting, take the casualties and pay the bill.  The neocons worked on a president who had little understanding of foreign policy (though Trump is a great deal brighter than W.) to do their bidding, and he fell for it.  The result was a disaster for America and the region (and, ironically, Israel).  We lost more than 5000 young Americans dead, tens of thousands wounded, trillions of dollars wasted, and the Iraqi state destroyed, to the benefit of Fourth Generation, non-state entities such as Al Qaeda and ISIS that are real threats to the U.S. and Israel, which Saddam’s Iraq was not.  We also destroyed the main regional power that was blocking Iran’s quest for regional dominance.

Now, we are supposed to make up for that blunder by going to war with Iran.  The result would likely be even worse.
When defeat is disastrous and victory arguably even worse, the wise move is to not go to war at all.

Labels: ,

79 Comments:

Blogger Unknown March 10, 2019 6:36 PM  

I am reminded of a phrase from my youth, during the Hostage Crisis, "Nuke em til they glow, and shoot them in the dark."

Let Israel pick the fight itself, this time.

-Unknownsailor-

Blogger Mark Stoval March 10, 2019 6:38 PM  

I can imagine Bill Lind as leader of the US. If he were, we might really stand a chance.

For what it is worth; leader would not necessarily be president.

Thanks for the post Vox.

Blogger Jo K March 10, 2019 6:39 PM  

Either nuke all of them or leave the whole damn area alone. Whichever, just be done with it.

Blogger Babydoc March 10, 2019 6:43 PM  

As a retired Army officer with 2 tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan...HELL NO!

Blogger Yordan Yordanov March 10, 2019 6:46 PM  

Trump cannot afford to go to war with Iran. Forget about reelection, If he does his reputation will be unsalvageable. He might not be bending for the media, but you can bet he doesn't want to do something, history will not vindicate him for. Thus we might get into the interesting situation where Congress (neocons and democrats) declares war over the President's head.

Blogger Brett baker March 10, 2019 6:48 PM  

Well, when the Iranians sink a supertanker or six if we do attack, it'll help the fracking guys. That's about it, though.

Blogger tublecane March 10, 2019 6:52 PM  

My recollection from around Iraq War II was that Iran was ripe for revolution and soon to fall to democracy or whatever. Like the later Arab Spring, it was to be part of a series of spontaneous regime-change dominoes falling. '79 all over again in Tehran, except the new regime would be all, "Here, take our resources."

I don't know if that was just fodder for the rubes, wishful thinking, an attempt to alter reality by putting the future you want to see into words, or mere delusion. But our ruling class was grossly irresponsible for even thinking about it.

They're not any better now. I'd prefer they abandon empire and focus on the coming troubles at home, but that's impossible. Let us rather crumble and fall with a bit of dignity.

Blogger Unknown March 10, 2019 7:00 PM  

Stop making it sound as if "W" was just a poor, stoopid mug, when he was in on the gig the whole time as a solid partner of the Neo-Cons from the get-go! Bush Crime Family helped stage 9/11 as the basis for declaring hostilities with Iraq, despite the total lack of REAL evidence that weapons of mass destruction were secretly lodged in Iraq.

When Iraq was invaded, you could have asked any GI why we are invading Iraq and he/she would have responded with, "Because Saddam had a hand in 9/11!" That's how bad the propaganda was, tying Saddam to the Bush-controlled 9/11 event.

And for all you igmos crying "CONSPIRACY!" explain to me what exactly happened to WTC 7 and how WTC 1 & 2 became the ONLY skyscrapers in HISTORY, to fall because of a fire and collision, when they were both engineered to withstand same.......

Blogger tublecane March 10, 2019 7:08 PM  

@5- I find your scenario unlikely, especially since Congress would have to override a veto. But if it were to happen, a president truly opposed to war would probably resign. It's fun to speculate upon what would happen if a president refused to budge. Congress is powerless to command troops directly. They'd have to impeach, I suppose on grounds of treason.

Blogger Crew March 10, 2019 7:09 PM  

And this may be the second best thing President Trump did for us!

The first was making sure Hillary never became president.

The second is keeping us out of more disastrous wars!

Blogger Garuna March 10, 2019 7:21 PM  

I find your scenario unlikely, especially since Congress would have to override a veto. But if it were to happen, a president truly opposed to war would probably resign. It's fun to speculate upon what would happen if a president refused to budge. Congress is powerless to command troops directly. They'd have to impeach, I suppose on grounds of treason.

Congress has been getting pretty bold lately. Preventing Trump from pulling out the troops and cucking him on the Wall. I think it's entirely possible they'd impeach him for the war and that "treason" would be their excuse.

I'm at the point where I'd be okay if someone pulls a Breivik and massacres all of Congress. I think it'd be a heroic, patriotic act.

Blogger Robert What? March 10, 2019 7:26 PM  

Does Bill Lind really believe ISIS is a threat to Israel? ISIS is an invention of Israel.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd March 10, 2019 7:32 PM  

I love the idea of Israel and their Arab BFFs invading Iran! We could sell both sides weapons at the friends and family rate, because both sides would be killing our enemies.

Blogger John Best March 10, 2019 7:34 PM  

@12 He is saying that 4th generation warfare is a threat to Israel, because it is.

Blogger Lazarus March 10, 2019 7:38 PM  

Robert What? wrote:Does Bill Lind really believe ISIS is a threat to Israel? ISIS is an invention of Israel.

Maybe not an invention of Israel but certainly not an enemy.

This from spring 2017

Isis-affiliated fighters “apologised” after launching an attack on Israeli soldiers, the country’s former defence minister has claimed.

Moshe Ya’alon was reportedly referring to an incident when a group linked to Isis in the Syrian Golan Heights exchanged fire with Israeli forces last November.


Blogger Gettimothy March 10, 2019 7:40 PM  

what will the false flag be this time?

My guess is it will happen in Europe this time.

Blogger Vessimede Barstool March 10, 2019 7:41 PM  

Why? Because 1&2 were built with duct tape and chewing gum in an era when the mob ruled NYC. WTC7 is much more likely to have been a controlled demolition, a building that literally fell down at free fall speed because of a fire in the basement.

The conspiracy with 9/11 isn't whether or not a group of rag heads hijacked the airliners it's whether or not parts of the American deep state were aware of the plan (it's been proven they were) and either did nothing to stop it (again proven) or even facilitated it. The hijackers themselves were paid operatives for the Saudi government (proven) so there's zero doubt in my mind that the operation itself was a false flag of some sort.

When trying to work out who is behind a conspiracy you first look at who benefits from it. On that basis we can expect an even bigger outrage against American civilians to make them act in the desired way. Yes the Trump hating left now love war, but they don't count. For America to invade Iran the Jews and their minions need the right to be on board with it, and the only way that could possibly happen is if Iran sinks an aircraft carrier (ha) or it launches a WMD attack on American soil.

American and Israeli intelligence have been doing this in Syria for years, with TV crews on hand to capture video of the crying lil chillin. But anti war sentiment is so baked into western nations DNA that even "we must prevent another Holocaust" shtick didn't work.

So what were Benjamin and crew discussing? For damn sure they weren't planning out their military campaign, Israel and Saudi Arabia have zero interest in going to war with Iran. So I imagine they were talking about what they needed to do to get Trump and his supporters to do it for them. Jews are gonna Jew after all.

Blogger VD March 10, 2019 7:48 PM  

Does Bill Lind really believe ISIS is a threat to Israel? ISIS is an invention of Israel.

Not ISIS, he knows who backed ISIS. He's talking about full range of 4GW forces that would be created by the destruction of Iran.

I doubt any false flags, as that particular card has been wildly overplayed.

Blogger Vessimede Barstool March 10, 2019 7:50 PM  

An outrage in Europe won't cut it. It will be against an American target and it will be BIG. A run of the mill massacre, a bunch of muzzie retards shooting up a shopping mall in gay Paree and pinning it on the Iranians, won't cut it. Besides a huge percentage of the public, likely a majority at this point, are well aware of false flag attacks and will assume the worse once our Neo Palestinian elements start frothing at the mouth.

My guess is an attack on a vulnerable US military installation or a WMD attack on an American city, likely chemical, with the forensics tracing it back to the Iranians.

Blogger Crew March 10, 2019 7:51 PM  

what will the false flag be this time?

My guess is it will happen in Europe this time.


Maybe they will discover Iranians have been building people-sized gas ovens in Poland!

Blogger Lazarus March 10, 2019 7:53 PM  

Let's you and him fight.

Blogger tz March 10, 2019 7:53 PM  

But NetyanPoodle wants US to go on another yellow cakewalk. I hear laptops and AI photoshopping is happening even as I write this.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan March 10, 2019 7:56 PM  

I had to double check the date to make sure I was not reading "On War."

Blogger Lazarus March 10, 2019 8:03 PM  

The Europeans aren't buying it.

Recently more cracks widened. Secretary of State Pompeo at Warsaw, trying to get everyone on board with attacking Iran: "Sadly, some of our leading European partners have not been nearly as cooperative. In fact, they have led the effort to create mechanisms to break up our sanctions." Vice President Pence at the Munich conference all but ordering the allies to get on board with Washington's leadership, to stop buying weapons from "our adversaries" and equating opposition to Washington's stand on Iran with anti-Semitism.

These efforts fell flat. Even The Economist called the Warsaw effort "shambolic" and a number of invited key players sent lower-ranking substitutes. So unenthusiastic was the response that the meeting had to be rebranded as about security in the Middle East rather than about making war on Iran. So, altogether, a bust: the whistle blew but the dogs didn't come. But worse, Pence's speech at Munich, praising Trump in every paragraph and threatening allies, fell completely flat with almost no applause. German Chancellor Merkel, speaking for the opposition (lots of applause) demurred.

Blogger OneWingedShark March 10, 2019 8:04 PM  

VD wrote:When defeat is disastrous and victory arguably even worse, the wise move is to not go to war at all.
Exactly so. But that's not the calculus that's in play; what's in play is the ability to get someone you despise to bleed and die for your own benefit.

tublecane wrote:I'd prefer they abandon empire and focus on the coming troubles at home, but that's impossible. Let us rather crumble and fall with a bit of dignity.
This is something that wouldn't be an issue if we had leaders with an allegiance to the US and its people. The whole problem is because the people in charge want Empire, and they want to spend American lives for it.

tublecane wrote:@5- I find your scenario unlikely, especially since Congress would have to override a veto. But if it were to happen, a president truly opposed to war would probably resign. It's fun to speculate upon what would happen if a president refused to budge. Congress is powerless to command troops directly. They'd have to impeach, I suppose on grounds of treason.
That would be supremely stupid; the President, as his defense: Declassify ALL 9/11 documents and release them to the public, underacted. Then use those to put counter-charges of Treason.

That would have interesting impact on certain political groups.

Blogger Lovekraft March 10, 2019 8:05 PM  

I imagine they would silently agree to work together to maintain their holdings, return to a balance with other middle eastern powers and, to our great detriment, prevent their peripheral adjuncts to continue in their submissive role.

Blogger Lovekraft March 10, 2019 8:05 PM  

last sentence should read 'adjuncts from breaking out of their submissive role.'

Blogger JG March 10, 2019 8:10 PM  

Look, you stupid 9/11 truthers: You don't have to melt steel to destroy a building. You merely need to heat up the steel so that the yield strength is too low to hold the building up.

Gods, the morons that can't understand basic mechanical engineering...

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother March 10, 2019 8:14 PM  

Can jet fuel mixed with concrete do the trick of making the towers collapse at free fall speeds into their own footprint?

Blogger Gettimothy March 10, 2019 8:15 PM  

If I was a neocon, I would make China a threat in some way.

The neocon Russia rhuse failed, for total war and Chaos, China is it.

Now, how to go about it.

Blogger OneWingedShark March 10, 2019 8:22 PM  

JG wrote:Look, you stupid 9/11 truthers: You don't have to melt steel to destroy a building. You merely need to heat up the steel so that the yield strength is too low to hold the building up.

Gods, the morons that can't understand basic mechanical engineering...

Who said anything about melting steel? But since you're obviously interested, try this video.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother March 10, 2019 8:26 PM  

Wouldn't the tops have just fallen off?

Blogger Arthur Isaac March 10, 2019 8:31 PM  

But I don't want to learn to speak Persian.

Blogger Doktor Jeep March 10, 2019 8:44 PM  

I'm sure Jared will tell Trump not to go to war with Iran.

Blogger Crew March 10, 2019 8:48 PM  

Can jet fuel mixed with concrete do the trick of making the towers collapse at free fall speeds into their own footprint?

Yes, it can. It's been proven several times (See, for example, WTC1, WTC2, and the special exhibit WTC7). It was reported in the Journal of Irreproducible results.

Blogger Crew March 10, 2019 8:51 PM  

If I was a neocon, I would make China a threat in some way.

The neocon Russia rhuse failed, for total war and Chaos, China is it.

Now, how to go about it.


If the Seventh Fleet can keep its navigation and other skills above below proficient, they could keep steaming through the Taiwan straight.

Eventually, I imagine the Chinese would eventually get pissed enough to try to sink one.

Blogger pyrrhus March 10, 2019 9:06 PM  

Great...War followed by a flood of Iranian refugees, and a bigger flood of "refugees" with fake Iranian IDs....

Blogger SciVo March 10, 2019 9:09 PM  

Gettimothy wrote:If I was a neocon, I would make China a threat in some way.

Then you don't understand them. China actually is a (regional) threat, and they would much rather ignore the region entirely and bang on about Russia and Iran. They can't even credibly claim to be anti-jihad, since you never hear them talk about invading Qatar, Saudi Arabia, or the UAE. Their "principles" are whack.

They simply don't make any rational sense to me. I think that neocons are just paranoid neurotics, with blinders made of dollar bills, that never took a punch to the face, and neither know nor care how much their yappy aggressive little-dog antics cost the pack.

Blogger PragmaticTroll March 10, 2019 9:11 PM  

Would love a hardback of Lind's On War. A sequel would also be great!

Blogger Ransom Smith March 10, 2019 9:12 PM  

Look, you stupid 9/11 truthers: You don't have to melt steel to destroy a building.
Maybe, maybe not.
The Twin Towers are the easily dismissed conspiracy by many, lots of half truths and near explanations.
Building 7 and the Pentagon are the topics never discussed because they don't stand up under scrutiny.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey March 10, 2019 9:20 PM  

This point from the link bears repeating:

Beyond that, how is Iran a threat to us? Terrorist incidents in the U.S. and Europe have overwhelmingly been carried out by Sunnis, not Shiites, often Sunnis trained in madrassas funded by Saudis.

Our "second greatest ally," Saudi Arabia, may not always supply the footsoldiers for terrorist attacks against the US and other Western countries -- though it did for 9/11. But it almost always supplies the motivating ideology -- the radical Wahhabist sect of Sunni Islam that the Saudi government funds and promotes worldwide. When was the last major terrorist attack in the West that was carried out by Shiites?

Blogger Crew March 10, 2019 9:21 PM  

Meanwhile, Pakistan is ready for war, we are told!

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-09/pakistan-ready-war-pm-khan

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey March 10, 2019 9:24 PM  

@28
Can "mechanical engineering" explain how the Dancing Israelis from Mossad front Urban Moving Systems were able to get in position ahead of time to take photographs and celebrate when the first plane hit? Just curious.

Blogger George Phillies March 10, 2019 9:28 PM  

JG wrote:
"Look, you stupid 9/11 truthers: You don't have to melt steel to destroy a building. You merely need to heat up the steel so that the yield strength is too low to hold the building up.

Gods, the morons that can't understand basic mechanical engineering..."

Once a World Trade Tower starts to fail, gravity ensures that it falls more or less straight down. Once the falling part builds up a little speed, the mechanical strength of the ower floors is totally unable to reduce its acceleration, and it drops at more or less one gravity.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother March 10, 2019 9:32 PM  

Wrong.

Blogger Longtime Lurker March 10, 2019 9:37 PM  

Small Consolation: "Great nations do not fight endless wars." Donald J. Trump, Second State of the Union Address.

Blogger James Dixon March 10, 2019 9:41 PM  

> When defeat is disastrous and victory arguably even worse, the wise move is to not go to war at all.

Trump needs to make it clear to both Israel and Saudi Arabia that while we'll provide any supplies they need, any war with Iran is theirs to fight.

> My guess is an attack on a vulnerable US military installation or a WMD attack on an American city, likely chemical, with the forensics tracing it back to the Iranians.

And the rest of America will pull out their list, scratch that city off, and go "well, that's one we don't have to worry about". The major cities have no idea how much they're hated in flyover country.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey March 10, 2019 10:08 PM  

@37 pyrrhus
Great...War followed by a flood of Iranian refugees, and a bigger flood of "refugees" with fake Iranian IDs.

Don't worry. Our special envoy for regime change in Venezuela, Elliott Abrams, will manage to import thousands of Venezuelan "refugees" first -- whether he's successful in toppling Maduro or not. He's already working on getting TPS status for them:

Special envoy Elliott Abrams says TPS for Venezuelans is ‘under review'

So we'll get Iranian and Venezuelan "refugees!"

@38
They simply don't make any rational sense to me.

Israel First + Trotskyite "permanent revolution" = neocon.

See also: Yinon Plan, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," PNAC, JINSA...

Blogger Mile High Honey Bear March 10, 2019 11:55 PM  

American neocons were major players then in devising a new strategy for the destruction of every Arab country that could be a threat to the Jewish state. Iraq was first on the list.

Huh, I'm genuinely surprised to see Mr. Lind infer that Iran is an "Arab Country", wtf? smh

Blogger pyrrhus March 11, 2019 12:05 AM  

@44 Sure...And that's why slow motion video of falling steel beams from the TT shows them turning to dust as they fall....Guess you missed that.

Blogger pyrrhus March 11, 2019 12:08 AM  

@42

Against whom, I wonder? Not India, which will cheerfully wipe them off the map....

Blogger Johnny March 11, 2019 12:44 AM  

My take on 9/11 is conspiracy lite. We created an environment that allowed it to happen, but were otherwise were not involved in what the terrorists did. And there is some evidence that Mossad anticipated the event.

Blogger Ivan Ivanoff March 11, 2019 1:23 AM  

>they must fight on their own!
>will give all the materiel!

You can't be half cuck, you see.

Blogger Geir Balderson March 11, 2019 2:00 AM  

Personally, I think we should drop all military efforts in the Mideast. Let Israel and Saudi Arabi defend themselves. Ally ourselves with Russia and tell the rest of the World to go pound sand. Brig our troops home to defend our borders. Make peace with China and let them have their own mini-empire in Asia. India can also defend them selves.
Also, cut immigration to only those folks that can finance their life in the US and have professions that contribute to the Country. Have an immigration policy similar to New Zealand.

Good luck World!!

Blogger nswhorse March 11, 2019 7:52 AM  

Not familiar with Bill Lind, but I do like his construction "committing truth". Did he coin it, and does he employ it regularly? I'm inclined to borrow it for my own use in any case.

Blogger James Dixon March 11, 2019 8:13 AM  

> You can't be half cuck, you see.

Do you really think they would take that deal? If you do you don't understand how this works.

Blogger Good Will March 11, 2019 8:17 AM  

The World Trade Center towers collapsed because the weight of the floors above exceeded the tensile strength of the steel members below, heated by fuel and weakened by shock and collision with aa large aircraft moving at 500 miles per hour. The engineers got it wrong.

Each tower tumbled into the multi-story basement shared with tower 7, weakening the foundation and causing the superstructure, which was already on fire, to collapse into the hole.

The World Trade Center complex was an integrated design. Failure of one component led to catastrophic failure of the whole.

Blogger Blunt Force March 11, 2019 8:46 AM  

America has a two party system. It's Bolshevik vs Zionsts . Any other interests need not apply.

This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States)... this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire."
Writing on 'Zionism versus Bolshevism' in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 1920

Blogger Gettimothy March 11, 2019 8:58 AM  

@58 Americans once knew this. Lindbergh, Ford...

Blogger Blunt Force March 11, 2019 9:10 AM  

BTW the quote is from Winston Churchill. Here.

Zionism versus Bolshevism

Blogger Damelon Brinn March 11, 2019 9:32 AM  

Turns out demolitions companies were ripping everyone off. They claimed the only way to collapse a tall building without it falling over onto its neighbors was to spend weeks inserting carefully planned explosives up and down its support structure and set them off with exact timing. Or you can just pour a bunch of fuel in one of the top floors, toss in a match, and knock off for lunch while it takes care of itself.

Blogger Boorn Boorm March 11, 2019 10:03 AM  

I don't understand how neocons could push an Iraqi invasion, and the EFFECT has been a largely Shia controlled mucky confederal/federal Iraq that has good relations and economic ties to Shia headquarters, Iran.
Anyone make sense of this?

Blogger Iron Spartan March 11, 2019 10:25 AM  

The only reason we haven't gone to war is that the deep state can't decide who to go to war with. (((Some))) want to got to war with Iran. Others and lobbying hard for Venezuela. Others are still trying to start a war with Russia. A minority are trying to get the military aligned on real threats like China.

Blogger cheddarman March 11, 2019 10:32 AM  

Would rather that we put the neocons and their enablers on trial for treason, then hang them by the neck until dead. America First!

Blogger Tars Tarkusz March 11, 2019 10:32 AM  

Iran would be Iraq times 10 or something. I have little doubt the empire could topple the regime, but putting Humpty Dumpty back together again is quite another story. I cannot see how Iran becoming a stateless entity is going to benefit anyone, including Israel.

Blogger xevious2030 March 11, 2019 12:26 PM  

“Strange game. The only winning move is not to play.” - Wargames

Obama, the junior Senator which Clinton was told to take a back seat to, went to quite a bit of risk to give Iran a lot of money, among other things. The Iran with the swift boat navy. There is a relationship (more than simple closet Muzzy, something deeper along those lines). From the looks of it, Iran has a seat at the table somewhere, puppet strings in hand, enough where Libs hate the regime in public but do their best to prop it up where it counts. I mean, Iran is nothing, nobody, and yet, it isn’t. If you consider the Deep State and Swamp activity over the years in Iran, overthrow this, and then overthrow it again, and then again, there is something much bigger than what is presented. Iran is what they desire, the way it is, at any time. Take it another way, what kind of push/pull is there required to get a junior nothing puppet to be put in as US President, who then utilizes the Clintons to initiate an “Arab Spring” with a bunch of Sunnis, by Shiites? And what rewards/punishments would be involved for puppets loyalty/performance/guarantees (protocols and protocol violations)? It smacks of power. And Netanyahu does not seem to be operating at that level, whatever the case of the elites of Israel and their intentions.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey March 11, 2019 12:36 PM  

@57
Each tower tumbled into the multi-story basement shared with tower 7, weakening the foundation and causing the superstructure, which was already on fire, to collapse into the hole.

The collapse of Building 7 was not even mentioned in the report of the 9/11 commission's "investigation." The officially-endorsed "explanation" for its destruction was not generated until later -- and had nothing to do with damage to the foundation/ basement.

If feel obligated to shill for the officially-mandated narrative of the 9/11 attack, at least try to get the party line straight before you start.

Oy vey.

@62
I don't understand how neocons could push an Iraqi invasion, and the EFFECT has been a largely Shia controlled mucky confederal/federal Iraq that has good relations and economic ties to Shia headquarters, Iran.
Anyone make sense of this?


1. They're not as smart as they think they are.
2. Still greatly weakened Iraq, generated large numbers of "refugees" for importation to Western countries, and destroyed a significant Christian minority population in Iraq -- all wins in their eyes.
3. Iran is next on the agenda for "regime change"/ invasion/ reduction to failed-state status.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey March 11, 2019 12:44 PM  

@66
Obama, the junior Senator which Clinton was told to take a back seat to, went to quite a bit of risk to give Iran a lot of money, among other things. The Iran with the swift boat navy. There is a relationship (more than simple closet Muzzy, something deeper along those lines).

Perhaps the (((Pritzkers))) are crypto-Iranians?

Blogger John Williams March 11, 2019 1:16 PM  

ISIS is a Wahabi mercenary army, the only Wahabi financiers out there are the Saudi’s, who are allied to Israel.

Blogger xevious2030 March 11, 2019 2:24 PM  

@68 That I don’t know much about. But the CIA was pre Shah, was Shah, and post-Shah Iran held the US hostages until after Bush Sr. (CIA) was a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Bush Sr. hits Iraq. Bush Jr. comes in, topples Iraq. Obama talks harsh, gives a big hug to Iran. Obama helps the Sunni ISIS, and Russia/Iran fight ISIS in Syria, but Obama and the Arab Spring depose Reagan western affiliates/projects that were once positioned against Iranian/Soviet “anti-US” activity. DROC (non-Arab, non-Muslim) seems to be the only genuine transition away from a CIA puppet, and that was halted by an assassination. Most of the other transitions seem to have been made to order (dusted off OpPlans (my calculated guess, not observation)).

Blogger Tars Tarkusz March 11, 2019 5:22 PM  

xevious2030 wrote:Obama, the junior Senator which Clinton was told to take a back seat to, went to quite a bit of risk to give Iran a lot of money, among other things.

Obama gave them back money we stole from them. As I understand it, the US froze the assets of the Iran state after the 79 coup.
Giving them their own money back is not exactly a big favor.

Blogger xevious2030 March 11, 2019 5:46 PM  

@71 I had no idea that was the Ayatollahs money in 1978, from their personal bank account, the 1978 money in the Islamic Revolutionary bank account. I mean, there was no force of arms or taking involved in any of that stuff in Iran in 1979, that was the Ayatollahs money, he made selling bumper stickers. And yes, it was a really big favor. Because for 37 years, the US told them, no. Jimmy said no, Ronald said no and no, George said no, Bill said no and no, other George said no and no. Along comes Barrack, and he says no and yes (on his way out).

You know the funniest thing of all. George, when he served under Ronald, they didn’t release the money, oh but the hostages were released, right on que. And it wasn’t because they were afraid of Ronald or worked for him. George didn’t work for them. But Barrack, he released the money.

Blogger xevious2030 March 11, 2019 5:55 PM  

@71 You can say it was conquest by the Islamic Revolution, taking back what had originally been stolen and controlled by outsiders. And I’m not going to argue with that, you can make a case for that, that I will acknowledge. It’s the release of the funds though, that’s the tell.

Blogger Haxo Angmark March 11, 2019 6:17 PM  

VD: "...doubt any false flag, as that particular card has been wildly overplayed."

not if it's several orders of magnitude bigger and bloodier than 9/11;

a small nuclear device going off in a Muslim suburb of Detroit would do nicely....

with "evidence" shortly produced that "Iran did it".

Blogger flyingtiger March 11, 2019 7:14 PM  

#71. We should have kept the money as compensation for taking over our embassy. Fair is fair.

Blogger Tars Tarkusz March 11, 2019 8:03 PM  

@75 That's a reasonable point, but that's not what happened. Had they taken it and said 'this is compensation for the hostages' distress and suffering,' I would say that is a fair argument. But from what I read, this was more like frozen assets, but technically still theirs.

Blogger Robert What? March 12, 2019 3:26 AM  

@Lazarus - while ISIS is no threat to Israel, they are a clear and present danger to the ancient Christian communities in that region. They have been all but obliterated. Virtually no one speaks out for them: not the Pope and certainly not Israel.

Blogger xevious2030 March 12, 2019 10:15 AM  

Ok. An embassy is sovereign territory. The taking of the embassy is an act of war. Acts of war legitimize the seizing of assets. That’s what happens. The US seized the assets. The seizure had nothing to do with a nuclear program or compensation for hostages, and the conditions relevant to the seizure have not changed. Relations had not been repaired to the point of reestablishing an embassy/diplomatic mission, which validated the seizure until such time as normal relations were restored, which they have not. For the seizure to be returned as a concession for a latter occurrence (nuclear program), without the condition of normalized relations occurring, is a crock. A variety of US presidential administrations, with a variety of outlooks, upheld the seizure, time and again. President Obama handed over the frozen assets without the conditions of normalized relations being restored. De facto, by recognition of the afore mentioned, he worked as an agent on the behalf of Iran, a power that has committed an act of war against the US and which is hostile to the US. The former part of the paragraph is all historical international relations since the dawn of time. The latter part is the neck and throat of the situation, that’s the vulnerability for that part of the equation. Were that to reverse, it’s the monkey wrench of failure to deliver. There is no diplomatic mission, and so things are still up in the air. But not holding my breath.

Blogger Obama's boyfriend April 20, 2019 7:53 AM  

Iran isn't a threat, nor is the PRC or Russia, nor was Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. And according to the author the jews followed the wisest path by not fighting Hitler.

Carthage could tell the author something about the costs of defeat.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts