The rich world consists of approximately one billion people. Most of them are consumers in the over-industrialized nations but they also include the national elites of every country around the world - usually large landowners.[1] The rich nations exploit the world’s poorest people with the help of the national elites which dominate poor countries. These national elites are the servants of the rich world and traitors to their own people. America has approximately 3% of the world’s population but consumes about 20% of the world’s wealth. About half the ooman population i.e. three billion people, live on less than 3 dollars a week. About a billion people live in terrible grinding poverty, and are homeless, propertyless, destitute, malnourished, diseased, exhausted, illiterate. The world’s biggest terrorists are global capitalists - many of whom had offices in the towers of babel. Thankfully there are still some brave voices in the brutish intellectual desert who have not been terrorized into silence about this situation. Vernon coleman stated, “Bush has described his new war as a fight between good and evil. But to some, corporate america represents the evil.”[2] Without confronting this reality there is very little hope of challenging the forces of evil at work around the world and thereby putting the world to rights. The evils of zionist oppression, american imperialism, and global capitalism are far worse than anything bin laden has done.

The responses to bin laden’s spectacular acts of terrorism highlighted the fact that there are two worlds on this planet - the rich and the poor. It is not possible for two different, conflicting, worlds to survive on one planet. Americans enjoy a mind boggling surfeit of wealth, and political freedoms, whilst the bulk of the world has little wealth and few political freedoms. Despite their wealth and their political freedoms, americans treat the rest of the world as if it is just a storehouse of resources for them to expropriate whenever they feel like doing so. America installs and funds governments around the world to exploit their own people by exporting commodities for american consumers. The structural imbalance between the rich and poor worlds cannot last. It is possible the gap between the rich and the poor worlds will one day explode in conflict. But then again, it is possible the rich world’s oppression of the poor will be so overwhelming the poor will never rebel - there is surely never likely to be another global terrorist organization along the lines of al-qaeda, which is a historically unique phenomenon. The rich world will never again allow a network like this to develop. However, even if the poor do not rebel, and the educated rich can do nothing to come to their aid, the two world system is ecologically unsustainable. The planet’s life support system cannot survive when that part of it inhabited by the rich is in fairly good health, whilst the rest of it is collapsing not merely because the poor are digging up every Tree in search of fuel wood, or to grow crops, but because the rich world is exploiting its resources and using it as a dumping ground for pollution and toxic waste.

The zionist-palestinian conflict is not a normal conflict between two, equally matched, competitive, peoples. The zionist regime in palestine is one of the most odious and repressive regimes in the world. This conflict has reverberations that reach around the world firstly, because of the diaspora of both peoples and, secondly, because palestine is the meeting place of three global religions. It is also the meeting place of the global rich (the zionists) and the global poor (palestinians). The treatment of the palestinian people is of concern to ordinary moslems around the world because it is a touchstone of the west’s attitudes towards moslems. They know that america props up the world’s moslem elites who oppress their own people but america’s dominance of these elites is far from transparent to moslem people. All they can see is moslem elites’ oppression of moslem people so it is they who get the blame. In contrast, amero-zionist domination of palestinian people is highly transparent. It provides the most tangible evidence of the rich world’s oppression of the world’s poor and this disturbs moslems around the world. Unless palestinian-zionist conflicts are resolved they are always going to heighten tensions between moslem countries and the rich world and inspire terrorism around the world. And conversely, until oomans solve the structural conflict between the rich world and the poor world this will make it difficult to resolve the palestinian-zionist conflict.

The politically correct in america and brutland recognize that the palestinian-zionist conflict is poisoning international relationships around the world. They accept that america and brutland are propping up the terrorist zionist state in palestine. But they will not admit that zionists’ influence within the american and brutish governments, and within the american and brutish medias, is the critical factor which ensures these governments continue to prop up the zionist state. They pretend that people’s ethnic origins are completely irrelevant to their political views.

There is a disproportionately high number of jews in both the american congress and the brutish parliament. The same is also true of both the american and brutish medias. The jews in the political world are able to help jews in the media world and vice versa. They are able to reinforce their common interests and promote zionists’ interests in both the political and media domains. The jews in the american/brutish media help to prop up the political interests of jewish lobbies in their respective countries.

The gross political inequalities between jews and moslems in america and britain has led the american and british governments to pursue racist foreign policies which support the jews-only state in palestine. These political inequalities stem from two deficiencies in the american and british constitutions. There is never going to be peace in palestine, nor the middle east, until the american and british governments adopt anti-racist foreign policies and, this will never happen until these two constitutional deficiencies are remedied. In other words, fundamental reforms in palestine/middle east are dependent upon constitutional reforms to the american and british political systems to abolish the gross political imbalance between jews and moslems which has developed because of the gross under-representation of minorities in these countries.

In britain, where whites are the largest majority (allegedly 93%), it is a logistical impossibility to get equitable representation for minorities through the two party system. The efforts made to bring about greater representation of minorities within this system are futile. There are two ways of ensuring greater political representation for visible minorities. The first option is the adoption of proportional representation designed to introduce a multi-party system. The second option is the establishment of a second chamber in parliament (replacing the house of lords) in which candidates would be elected from a national constituency. Candidates from all classes, sections, and types, in society would stand for election to what could be called the house of minorities and, if they received sufficient electoral support, could provide representation for a wide cross section of society. Electors would choose the candidate they most preferred. For example, women could vote for women candidates, moslems could vote for moslem candidates, irish people could vote for irish candidates, gays could vote for gay candidates, Animal rightists could vote for Animal rights candidates, etc. The lords is currently dominated by a tiny sector of society - subsidy laden pharmers, the landowning elite, and ‘the great and the good’. Only 1% of the country’s population are pharmers and yet the proportion of people in the lords with pharming interests is huge - 30%? A house of minorities would represent a far greater cross section of society than the current method of selection for the house of lords.

The founding fathers created a political constitution based on checks and balances. For example, they wanted a representative system which was popular and thus choose an electoral system in which representatives to the senate were elected from roughly equally sized electorates. This meant that the more densely populated an area, the greater its number of representatives. However, the founding fathers also wanted to prevent a small number of heavily populated, urban, areas with large numbers of representatives from dominating federal politics so they created a second legislative body, the house of representatives, which had a geographically orientated electoral system. For this chamber, two members are elected from each american state creating an equality between all states no matter what the size of their electorates.

Zionist propaganda is divided into two parts. The first is the global jewish conspiracy which seeks to render some political issues invisible and thus beyond political debate. The second is a conventional ideology which promotes specific ideas and a particular way of seeing the world and interpreting events.

In both america and brutland, zionists’ political and media power enables them to enforce a global jewish conspiracy of silence over a wide range of issues. This conspiracy:

No matter what justification the allies give for their military operations, no matter what recourse allied politicians make to high principles, the fact is that the world’s richest and most powerful nations are attacking the world’s poorest nation. Afghanistan has no electricity generating capacity; it has virtually no electricity supply, no gas supply, no telephone service, no postal service, no water supply, no roads, no medical clinics. Most of the buildings in the country have been damaged to one extent or another as a result of nearly two decades of war. As kevin toolis points out, “There is nothing to bomb in afghanistan .. The country is a ruin .. ”[10] The united nations’ estimates that as a result of the last two decades of conflict 500,000 afghanis have been disabled. For the last four years the country has suffered a drought causing not merely starvation but gruelling hardship as people have to walk miles to find clean water. If the allies pursue the same war tactics as they did during the gulf war then surely this will be one of the sickest, most morally degenerate, wars ever fought. Quite how an invasion could take place when nearly seven million people are starving is a little difficult to appreciate unless the allies’ armies are parachuted away from refugee camps on the borders and the people starving inside the country. The depravity of fighting a war amidst the corpses of starving people is unforgivable. It provides yet more justification for terrorism around the world.

Another common refrain arising from the september 11th bombings is that the world has suddenly changed. As has been implied above, nothing will change for the better if rich countries continue to terrorize the world’s poorest nation. The rich have always terrorized the poor. The american’s politicization of grief showed that the american government has no intention of doing anything else other than disposing of its enemies and protecting their right to exploit the poor. A war against afghanistan and other ‘troublesome’ islamic countries will just reinforce the madness and bigotry that currently infects a rabidly right wing american government.

America’s mourning for the victims of the september 11th bombings and the complete absence of any mourning for the 1-5 million other people around the world who also died on the same day, shows that the deaths of americans and zionists are far more important than the deaths of any other people. The american media treats the lives of american people as being of far greater worth than the lives of other peoples. This was alright in the days when the media served only their own country but when these media’s broadcast to the whole world it is producing a grossly distorted view of the world.

The fact that americans believe that american lives are worth far more than the lives of any other people around the world can also be seen from the fact that america is willing to go to war against afghanistan in order to put bin laden on trial for his crimes against americans but they aren’t willing to go to war against the zionists in palestine in order to put ariel sharon on trial for his war crimes against palestinians. Moslems ought to refuse to put bin laden on trial until america promises to put ariel sharon on trial.

One of the likely consequences of this war is that as soon as americans have satiated their lust for revenge mcbush will send american troops back home to a rousing reception; livestock consumers will slip back into their escapist, jewish-dominated, entertainment world free from moslems and any insights into global poverty or global burning; and the american government will impose sanctions on the countries they have just attacked and leave them to stew in political violence, social instability, and gross deprivation. These sanctions will go on and on - far beyond all reason. But american livestock consumers will care nothing and know nothing about the deaths these sanctions cause until, one day, a terrorist act is perpetrated on them and they will, once again, say to themselves, “What, oh what, have we done to deserve such treatment?” Moo, moo.

Three weeks after it became clear that the allies were going to bomb afghanistan, some commentators started stressing the need to restore the country after the war. Paul routledge demanded that the country would need a marshall plan, “This nation on its knees needs a new marshall plan to help to rebuild a shattered way of life.”[12] Mcblair promised that efforts would be made to help afghanistan recover after the war, “To the Afghan people we make this commitment. The conflict will not be the end. We will not walk away, as the outside world has done so many times before. If the Taliban regime changes, we will work with you to make sure its successor is one that is broad-based, that unites all ethnic groups, and that offers some way out of the miserable poverty that is your present existence.”[13] Exactly whether this would require armed forces and which ones - brutish troops, brutish and american troops, or a united nations force - is unclear. For four weeks mcbush kept denying he was going to get into nation building after the war but mcblair has convinced him otherwise. There is reason to believe that the america government is gradually beginning to realize that central asia has many economic advantages and that the rejuvenation of this area will benefit afghanistan.[14]

In 1990 during the build up of the allied coalition to fight the gulf war, the allies promised arab/moslem countries that if they supported the coalition, then americans would make efforts to bring about a peace agreement between the palestinians and the zionists. They failed. When the allies tried to use the same tactic for the war against (non-zionist) terrorism, arab/moslem countries refused to be deceived again. Arabs/moslems are sick of america’s promises, they want action. In just a matter of weeks, the americans and the brutish have launched a major effort to bring about peace in the middle east. However, the zionists have also been in this situation before and they’ll do their best to stall any agreement until the non-jewish american public no longer cares about the issue. They’ll occasionally murder palestinians to provoke terrorist reprisals in order to reinforce zionists’ resolve against any peace agreement and to show to the world that palestinians are terrorists who need to be incarcerated not liberated.

What makes a peace agreement between the palestinians and the zionists difficult is that since the creation of the zionist state, the zionists have been pushing palestinians off their own land and building illegal jewish settlements. This makes it impossible for palestinians to construct any viable palestinian state.

Americans, who have the world’s greatest constitution guaranteeing an abundance of freedoms, will continue to allow themselves to be exploited by the jewish lobby to prop up the zionist government - one of the world’s most oppressive and odious regimes. American people will continually fork out vast sums of money to finance proxy zionist wars and even lay down their lives to save zionist bigots.

Basically what america and its allies hope to achieve is to surgically remove from various countries around the world all (islamic) terrorists and leave the world completely untouched so they can continue raping and plundering the world’s resources. America’s war on (non-zionist) terrorism is not going to create a better world. The amero-zionists have no intention of being as tough on the causes on terrorism as they are on terrorism itself because they are the main causes of terrorism.

American consumer livestock are unwilling to change their lifestyles and become citizens of their country let alone the world or even planetary beings capable of creating a sustainable planet. They’d rather remain as consumers, grazing on the world’s resources. The amero-zionist-brutish triumvirate has been putting two fingers up to the rest of the world for too long - it’s time they recognized there are other people living on this planet besides themselves; it’s also time they recognized there are other species on this planet as well.

Bin laden has justice on his side on two critical issues. He is right about supporting palestinians and he’s right about the terrorism of american foreign policy, “We believe the biggest thieves and terrorists in the world are the americans.”[16] It is also possible to tolerate, in a diverse world, a fundamentalist moslem state like that in afghanistan.[17]

Americans no longer feel safe and no longer feel their country is impregnable from attack. At present many have lost interest in the dubious pleasures of their supremacism over the rest of the world. This is a good thing but it is likely to be only a temporary phenomenon. The war mongers will gradually start whipping up nationalistic and supremacist sentiments. Over the longer term americans can recover in one of two ways - either they are going to revert back to their old habits of submersing themselves in their cornucopian paradise; turning their backs on the rest of the world; and regarding the world solely as a storehouse for cheap labourers, even slaves, and cheap resources to enable them to carry on with their self indulgent, decadent, almost caliguan, lifestyles. Or, they can:

After the second world war there were doubtlessly many fair minded people who sympathized with the creation of a zionist state after the nazis’ exterminist policy against the jews. At the time the zionist slogan of “A people without land for land without people’ may have sounded like a desperate rallying cry for a people on the verge of annihilation rather than an exterminist policy which not merely ignored millions of palestinians living in this supposedly empty land, but threatened the eventual removal of all palestinians from their own country. However, as the zionist state has become more and more powerful, the slogan has sounded less and less like a rallying cry, and more and more like a propaganda threat. It smells more and more like the nazis’ lebensraum. The bulldozing of palestinian homes, the theft of palestinian land, the deportations of palestinians, the culling of palestinians by provoking them into riots, etc are increasingly resembling a gradualist exterminist policy. The injustices caused by the zionist state are becoming bigger and bigger. The military power of the zionist state has long since shifted from zionist self-defence to zionist expansionism.

Oomans are at a turning point. America’s response to this attack will determine the course of events over the next few decades. This could determine the way in which oomans destroy their life support system on Earth. Wars reduce ooman numbers and destroy a substantial part of the Earth’s life support system. However, both quickly recover. The bigger the ooman population, the greater the wars, the greater the devastation to the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity. One day this spiral of wars and recovery might cause so much damage to the Earth’s life support system that it triggers off a global burning disaster. It is unlikely that wars per se will lead to the demise of the ooman race because they are invariably survivors. But this demise could happen if wars triggered off a global burning disaster. It’s a shame the ooman race can’t exterminate itself through wars so that the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity might recover and stabilize the Earth’s climate - enabling the most intelligent life forms on Earth, Animals, to rule once again. Animals created the Earth’s habitability whilst oomans are just planet wreckers. Animals are far too clever to get themselves into the mess that moronic dipstick oomans are in at the moment.

Mcblair’s reaction to the september 11th bombings was intensely purposeful - although, unfortunately, quite what this purpose was is far from clear. His actions could be explained as a desperate endeavour to curb america’s desire for instant military retaliation. However it could also be explained by mcblair’s love of the american government and multi-national corporations. Perhaps all that he’s doing is following in george’s footsteps, “This was an attack on the free and democratic world and this is the responsibility of the free and democratic world have got to shoulder with america. It is important americans know their allies stand shoulder to shoulder with them.”[21] A verdict on mcblair has to be suspended until it’s clear what he’s up to.

“Clare short has not always opposed tony blair’s wars. She backed him to the hilt in kosovo and sierra leone.”[22]

Paul wolfowitz is the u.s. deputy defence secretary. It isn’t known whether wolfowitz is a jew but he’s certainly one of the pro-zionist hawks in the mcbush administration who wants to spread war liberally around the middle east, “U.s. deputy defence secretary paul wolfowitz told nato ministers in brussels of the link between states harbouring terrorists and those developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. His words appear to point directly to iraq. Mr wolfowitz has been saying the war on terrorism should be extended to saddam hussein’s regime, it has been reported.”[23] Even though he has a prestigious position in the mcbush administration he divides the world into two parts: the civilized and the uncivilized, “The deputy secretary of state, Paul Wolfowitz, said that "the whole civilised world has been shocked... and even portions of the uncivilised world have started to wonder whether they're on the wrong side". How's that for the official American view of the planet?”[24] He is a good example of the many jews in the american administration who are sacrificing american lives and money in order to protect the zionist state in palestine.

‘Newsnight’ on the evening of the bombings held a discussion about what had just happened.[25] There were six guests on the show. Former zionist prime minister ehud barak; former american secretary of state james rubin, and mark urban, a bbc2 reporter. Three jews on what was supposed to be a balanced discussion of the day’s events. Just about shows the level of the bbc’s political balance! And there are left wingers who denounce the notion of a global jewish conspiracy!

This show opened with a report by ian watson which exemplifies the global jewish conspiracy in operation on another of the brutish broadcasting corporation’s main discussion programmes. Watson provided a 10 minute summary of events leading to the september 11th bombings and yet did not once mention israeli state terrorism which has done so much to inflame moslem opinion around the world.[26]

This show opened with a report by david grossman which once again bore all the hallmarks of a strict allegiance to the global jewish conspiracy. Another 10 minute summary of events which, once again, made no mention israeli state terrorism.[27]

Paxman is a schizophrenic interviewer. There’s the harsh, abrasive, accusatory, style which he inflicts on those he doesn’t like or those he suspects of wrong-doing and then there’s the obsequious, chummy, respectful, interviews he does with important people. He october 17th he interviewed a couple of palestinians after the assassination of rehavam zeevi, a jewish nazi. He was at his most accusatory when interviewing lella khaled. He then interviewed a yasser arafat spokesperson and once again adopted the accusatory tone. He asked why didn’t the palestinian authorities arrest the freedom fighters responsible for killing the nazi? The palestinian replied in a quiet voice having to point out to paxman some of the basic realities of life for palestinians living in zionist occupied palestine - the palestinian authority has no jurisdiction in jerusalem and its officers aren’t able to move around the area to arrest those they suspect of a liberation act. Paxman did not condemn zeevi’s nazi views and the assumption of his interview was that the zionist state in palestine is a decent, liberal, democracy. Is this what support for palestine means - that we’ve got to stand shoulder to shoulder with jewish nazis like rehavam zeevi and his close mate ariel sharon?

Thomas presented a bbc news special in which she covered the assassination of the jewish nazi, rehavam zeevi, and then gave gore david, foreign affairs adviser to ariel sharon, what was virtually a five minute platform for him to extol the new zionist propaganda without any balancing interview with a palestinian.[28]

Urban did a piece on the eruption of conflict in palestine after the assassination of one of the crypto-nazi members of the zionist government. He started off his article with the burial of a jewish girl who’d been killed by a palestinian. There was an interview with one of the bereaved who demanded retaliation. The zionist army then carry out the wishes of the bereaved and execute the palestinian alleged to have been responsible for the girl’s death. Palestinians respond by killing a zionist cabinet member who is euphemistically called a “right winger” as opposed to what he actually was - a crypto-nazi. The article finished with a five minute interview with shimon peres and not a word spoken to a palestinian. This is what the bbc calls ‘balanced reporting’ in the middle east. Urban’s approach is the common analysis used by virtually all brutish media reporters. First start with the death of a zionist. This suggests that it is the palestinians who initiate violence rather than zionists. Then move onto the murder of a palestinian which suggests that zionist murders are just responses to palestinian terrorism thereby making the murder seem much less morally unacceptable. He can’t possibly say that zionist death squads are roving palestine executing palestinian freedom fighters in their struggle against an apartheid regime.

A sun editorial insisted, “The language must be moderating - yet the west must hit back and it must defeat terrorism. Bush and blair face only one certainty - they cannot do nothing.”[29]

On september 17th the front page of the mirror newspaper consists of a picture of bin laden and the words, “I want his head on a platter”. This is out and out warmongering to maintain, or boost, the paper’s circulation. However, the mirror’s editorial ‘the voice of the mirror’ is worried about george bush’s gung-ho mentality! It criticizes the dick cheney quote on its front page, “His vice president dick cheney yesterday added to the hysterical rhetoric by demanding “bin laden’s head on a platter”. But that is not the way to bring justice or peace or to defeat terrorism.”[30] In other words, the mirror is using war mongering to grab readers’ attention and then preaching caution. This is quite similar to its attitude to oomans’ gargantuan slaughter of Animals. Over the last couple of decades the mirror has launched several major campaigns against Animal cruelty but it also regularly features bimboes draped in fur.

At the end of 1998 the sunday people launched a blatant bit of propaganda attempting to further demonize saddam hussein, “Saddam hussein has hatched an evil plot to unleash his doomsday anthrax on britain in revenge for the air strikes against iraq.”[34]

“A sustained policy to curb the excesses of the israeli government in palestine, the russian government in chechnya and the pakistani and saudi governments against their own people would do far more to isolate bin laden and his terrorists than the relentless bombing - and inevitable further impoverishment - of the poorest country on earth.”[37]

Nice sentiments but i can’t quite see this happening, “It wouldn't be very difficult for an American president, exasperated beyond endurance, to portray an Israeli leader with such a violent and brutal past as a terrorist on a par with the Yasser Arafats and the Hassan Nasrallahs, whom Sharon calls "our own Bin Ladens" - and, because of the patriotic fervour of the times, carry the American public with him.”[38]

Will mutton starts to advocate a new theory he calls hard liberalism. Is it not amazing that someone who advocates universal values and progressive ideals such as justice, equity and liberty, should see absolutely nothing wrong with insisting on military action against moslem terrorists but not zionist terrorists? “The weeks since 11 September have seen unprecedented agreement about the necessity to eliminate global terrorism, using whatever military force is necessary. That is not at issue. The debate rather is how far this war should go, how it should be prosecuted and what international framework is needed to ensure a lasting victory. Hard liberalism offers the best route to success, and hard liberals must stand up for their case as aggressively as their critics. I use the term hard liberalism deliberately. It is unrelenting in its pursuit of the progressive ideals of justice, equity and liberty. Liberalism properly understood, an insistence on universal values that apply to all societies, is the philosophy under which we can be both aggressive and just.”[39]

Parsons is a former punk who used to be friends with johnny rotten but is now a newspaper columnist with the mirror and a novelist. He provides an interesting example of how people’s minds are warped by their careers in the jewish dominated media. He used to have some sympathy for the palestinian cause, “If the israelis and the palestinians are at war, then it must be the most one-sided in history - a military superpower against a nation of refugees, soldiers with automatic weapons against civilians with stones, a highly trained army against an undisciplined mob. But what has the war got to do with us? You mean apart from the increased risk of terrorism in our cities, the soaring price of oil, the collapse of the stock markets, the battering of our economy, the probability of rising inflation, and the subsequent loss of countless jobs.”[40]

Pilditch wrote an article for the ‘mirror’ newspaper providing lots of personal details about two zionists killed by palestinian freedom fighters. This was intended to evoke sympathy for the victims. There was no mention of the fact that they were living on an illegal settlement that had been stolen from palestinians. His last paragraph was, “In retaliation seven palestinians were killed as israeli tanks rolled into the streets of gaza hours later.”[55] In other words, the palestinians are cold blooded murderers who started the killings whereas zionist state terrorists are peace loving people who murder palestinians only in retaliation for what has been done to them - which usually means massacring 3-10 more people than the number killed by the palestinians. (Exactly the same storyline was used by olga guerin on bbc2). This is the stack of plates theory of terrorism in palestine i.e. only palestinians initiate violence and the zionists only respond to violence which thus justifies whatever they do. However, his article on the killing of the zionist nazi rehavam zeevi was fair and balanced.[56]

Reade attacks those on the left and right of the political spectrum over their views on the september 11th bombings. He’s too decent to adopt the right wing perspective and would find himself unemployed if he’d taken a radical stance so he creates an untenable proposition in order to demolish it and get the issue out of the way, “Those who argue that uncle sam had it coming have been made to look ridiculous by the sheer scale of the slaughter. The notion that 5,000 innocent people somehow deserved to die because american support for israel is sub sixth form politics.”[57] It is absurd to believe that the bombers were motivated solely by the treatment of palestinians in zionist occupied palestine. It is absurd to believe that the victims were criminals who were being punished for a crime they’d committed.

Routledge is one of the country’s less pro semitic journalists even though he supports the capture and trial of bin laden but says nothing about the capture and trial of ariel sharon, “The perpetrators of the attack on america cannot go unpunished.”[58] The reason he doesn’t demand that zionist terrorists like sharon should be treated the same way as moslem terrorists is because he knows his career would go down the drain if he ever made this demand. Routledge proceeds, “By their indulgence towards bin laden and his deranged followers, the taliban have invited the destruction that awaits them.”[59] But he doesn’t say this about the zionist state terrorists in palestine which not merely harbours one of the world’s worst terrorists but elects him as prime minister.

Described the zionist minister assassinated by palestinian freedom fighters as “a respected minister.”

Hormats insists the american government should take effective military action against the terrorists in afghanistan in order to boost american’s confidence in the economy. This is a new argument. It seeks to use concerns about the faltering health of the american economy to boost support for tough military action. He not merely supports military action against (non-zionist) terrorists but suggests american people would feel much happier if military action is carried out which, in turn, would boost consumer confidence in the economy and thus economic recovery. Shame it didn’t turn out that way. The fact that goldman sachs is a jewish owned company which is promoting a policy that would bring substantial benefits to zionist occupied palestine by removing its enemies, is probably entirely coincidental. He made no recommendation for military action to be taken against the extremists running the zionist-racist state in palestine.

Trump believes america must carry out retribution against bin laden. One of the world’s richest men is urging his country to bring devastation to the world’s poorest country. He doesn’t like the idea of the twin towers being demolished - he owns the empire state building. The wealthier people become, the sicker their outlook on life.

A former jewish adviser to various american governments. He’s the forerunner of james rubin. The media interviews kissinger in his capacity as a former advisor to american governments whilst never mentioning his jewishness but its known he can be relied upon to provide opinions supporting the zionist government. He insists the american government should carry out serious strikes against afghanistan and other countries harbouring terrorism. Quite how moslems would cope with americans running amok across large parts of the moslem world is a little difficult to see. Strangely, however, as a jew, he seems completely oblivious to zionist state terrorism. He believes there should be no new zionist-palestinian agreement until after america has won a decisive victory against (non-zionist) terrorism - whatever a decisive victory would look like. In other words, only when zionists’ enemies have been truly weakened is there any prospect that they would be prepared to negotiate with the palestinians who would get very little out of the deal.

..”George Bush is under siege from the ascendant conservative right. Last week's open letter from 41 conservative foreign policy experts, including Richard Perle, chairman of the Defence Policy Board, defines the argument. They want to build on Bush's commitment in his speech to Congress that 'our war on terror begins with al-Qaeda but will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated'. This, say the 41, as a minimum should include Hizbollah, retaliation against Syria and Iran if they refuse to cut their ties, and military invasion of Iraq. Others call for unilateral attacks on terrorist cells in Sudan, Libya, Iran and Egypt.”[63]

Prince alwaleed bin talal, a member of the saudi ‘royal’ (sic) family, reputed to be the sixth richest man in the world, handed a cheque for $10 million to ruddy giuliani as a contribution to the twin towers relief fund. However, when giuliani read bin talal’s press statement about his reasons for the donation, he decided to hand the donation back. The statement read, “I believe the government of the United States should re-examine its policies in the middle east and adopt a more balanced stance towards the Palestinian cause. Our Palestinian brethren continue to be slaughtered at the hands of Israelis while the whole world turns the other cheek.”[64]

“We want to make the world safe for democracy, and they want to make the Arab world safe from democracy. Americans want to destroy this terrorist menace so that we and all other free nations, including israel, can really enjoy our freedom.”[66]

“So why should america worry about civilians who will inevitably die in any backlash? America knows it can’t be half hearted in any attack. A token gesture will send out the wrong signals and these people will gloat over what an easy target the western world is.”[67]

David butler, the weapons inspector who helped to demilitarize iraq after the zionist war against iraq in 1991, was interviewed on channel 4 17.10.2001 and said there was no link between iraq and the anthrax sent to people in america. But, he pointed out that there hadn’t been any military inspections in iraq for three years so they didn’t know what saddam might be up to and, he hinted, it would be a good idea if it was known what he was up to.

On october 8th, david owen stated, “It would seem there is now no doubt that iraq was involved in the atrocities of september 11th.”[68]