Terra Firm no.25: Spectacularism, Zionism, Greens, Wildlife, and Bse.

In 1991 the mundi club argued that the allies' war against iraq was a proxy zionist war - in other words, that the zionist state in palestine had forced the american and brutish governments to go to war against iraq because if they didn't then the zionists would. After the 2001 pentagon and new york (p*ny) bombings the mc argued the zionist lobby in america and the zionists in the mcbush administration were intent on pushing america and brutland into a second zionist proxy war against iraq. The zionist state in palestine, and the zionist lobby in america, have usurped control over the american political system, and are now using america's military power to wage wars they are unable to fight themselves. To be more precise, the zionists are using america's military power to wage wars they are unable to fight for political, not military, reasons.

After the p*ny bombings the american government announced it would wage war against terrorism i.e. the terrorism perpetrated by al quaeda. However, the zionist lobby in america hijacked this political agenda and transformed the war against the terrorists threatening america, into a war against the terrorists threatening the zionist state in palestine. The terrorists threatening the zionist state included not merely al quaeda, hezbollah, and hamas, but saddam hussein, the palestinians, syria, iran, libya, and iran. This was not an insignificant geographical and political shift which was achieved almost seamlessly and with consummate political ease - the american public hardly seemed to have noticed the dramatic change in the direction of their government's foreign policy. As a consequence of this shift, the american and brutish militaries are being used by the zionists as tools solely to achieve the political and military objectives of the zionist state in palestine. There is no link between saddam hussein and al quaeda (nor between the palestinians and al quaeda) so the war against iraq has nothing to do with america's self defence nor the fight against terrorism in america. Joseph c. wilson, the deputy chief of mission, the acting ambassador at the u.s. embassy in iraq during 'desert shield', has argued, "Now what I worry about most is that we've lose focus on the war on terrorism where we've actually gone after al Qaeda and where we should continue to go after al Qaeda both in militarily as well as with our intelligence and our police assets. We've got lost focus on that. The game has shifted to Iraq for reasons that are confused to everybody. The millions of people who are on the streets of our country and of Europe, as I said the other day, it strikes me as – it may prove that Abraham Lincoln is right. You cannot fool all the people all the time."

It has to be concluded that the war against iraq is a zionist proxy war. It is the second zionist proxy war against iraq.

The mundi club is pleased to discover there are increasing numbers of commentators adopting such an analysis. Since this article was completed further commentators have also argued that the war in iraq is being fought for the benefit of the zionist state in palestine rather than america. For an updated list of the commentators who believe that jewish zionists in the bush jnr administration initiated the war against iraq and that their objective was to boost the regional power of the zionist state rather than the ndefence of america, please see, Jewish Zionists Initiated America’s Invasion of Iraq for the Benefit of the Zionist State in Palestine.

The first step in the zionist takeover of the american government came when zionists inside the american government, met to discuss the implications of the p*ny bombings. This meeting was what could be called the zionists' wannsee conference, "As revealed in an article in the New York Times (10/12/01), members of the Perle/Wolfowitz faction met for more than 19 hours on September 19-20, 2001 to "make the case" for a war against Iraq, the removal of Saddam Hussein, and the seizure of Iraqi oil, immediately after the conclusion of the war in Afghanistan. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld attended these meetings. Part of the discussion focused on how to tie Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks."

The second step in this takeover was when zionists outside the american government wrote an open letter to the president of the united states insisting on a dramatic change of course in america's foreign policies. Just how much collusion there was between these two groups is not known but it would be absurd to believe there was none, "On Sept. 20, forty neoconservatives sent an open letter to the White House instructing President Bush on how the war on terror must be conducted. Signed by Bennett, Podhoretz, Kirkpatrick, Perle, Kristol, and Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, the letter was an ultimatum. To retain the signers’ support, the president was told, he must target Hezbollah for destruction, retaliate against Syria and Iran if they refuse to sever ties to Hezbollah, and overthrow Saddam. Any failure to attack Iraq, the signers warned Bush, "will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism."" Patrick J. Buchanan goes on to point out that, "Here was a cabal of intellectuals telling the Commander-in-Chief, nine days after an attack on America, that if he did not follow their war plans, he would be charged with surrendering to terror. Yet, Hezbollah had nothing to do with 9/11. What had Hezbollah done? Hezbollah had humiliated Israel by driving its army out of Lebanon."

There is a remarkable parallel between saddam's control over iraq and sharon's control over the so-called democracies in america and brutland. In iraq, saddam is supported by the ba'athist party which draws its supports primarily from the sunni arabs living in the central regions of the country who form a mere 20% of the country's population. (In comparison, the shiites form 60% of the population and live in the south and the sunni kurds living in the north form 20% of the population). In other words, a tiny minority of the so-called iraqi population has usurped power in iraq just as an even tinier zionist minority has usurped power in america and brutland. It has to be concluded that america and brutland are zionist occupied governments - zogs.

is such a colossal public relations achievement that it could have been brought about only by a global zionist conspiracy against the american and brutish peoples. These mass deceptions are, without doubt, a major propaganda achievement for the zionist cause. Zionists are able to get away with such mass deceptions because they overtly finance politicians in america and covertly finance politicians in brutland, and because they dominate the media in both america and brutland which enables them to shape public opinion in these countries. These publicity successes prove beyond doubt that the zionists are getting closer and closer to world domination. To put it at its bluntest, to make sure there's no confusion about what is being argued here, the world is increasingly being ruled by crackpot zionists with a penchant for talmudic fundamentalism, rather than by the american government, european governments, or the united nations. That such a tiny ethnic grouping is able to exert such sweeping control over the american, brutish, and global, political systems is remarkable indeed. But what it also implies is the sheer livestock-like gullibility of the american and brutish publics.

The war against iraq is being waged solely as a result of zionists' words of mass deception. It is supposedly a war against a leader who abides by united nations' resolutions, but does not fully comply with them, whilst his zionist neighbours totally ignore all united nations' resolutions and have no intention of complying with them at all. It is a war to enforce united nations' resolutions by countries who have no specific united nations' mandate for such a war. It is supposedly a war against a leader for his role in the september 11th bombings - even though he had no role in such bombings. It is supposedly a war against a leader for his support of al quaeda - even though he has no connection with that organization. It is supposedly a war against a madman with weapons of mass destruction - even though he has no weapons of mass destruction. It is supposedly a war against terrorism when saddam does not finance terrorism - all that he does is provide charity money for palestinians whose homes have been destroyed by that crypto-nazi ariel sharon.

Saddam doesn't even pose a terrorist threat. Since the war, saddam has been successfully contained and has not dared to contribute in any way to global terrorism. He had no role in the p*ny bombings. Allegations spread by the zionist dominated media in america and brutland that he possesses nuclear weapons are absurd. Even if he did he couldn't deliver them. Even if he could deliver them, he couldn't defend his country from the retaliation that would follow. He might have chemical and biological weapons but he's confronted by the same constraints as he faces with nuclear weapons - he can't deliver them, and, even if he could, he doesn't have enough for a first strike that would wipe out his enemy to prevent them from retaliating and decimating his country. Saddam doesn't dare pose a terrorist threat to the zionist state in palestine because he knows that if the zionists established a link to his regime he would be powerless to stop them from inflicting heavy retaliation. He knows it would be suicidal to provide armed support for the palestinian liberation movement because his country is virtually defenceless.

The hypocrisy of american and brutish politicians and commentators over the war against iraq is staggering. American and brutish politicians insist that saddam must abide by all un resolutions whilst saying nothing about the need for the zionist state in palestine to do the same. They insist that nobody will take the united nations seriously if saddam isn't forced to abide by un resolutions, but they say nothing about forcing the zionists to abide by un resolutions. They denounce saddam's infringement of un resolutions in the most ferocious terms but say nothing about the zionist state's continual, flagrant infringements of such resolutions, "Since 1967, the United Nations Security Council has passed 15 resolutions criticizing Israel's behaviour. None of them have been acted upon. They include: Resolution 267 condemning Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem in 1980; Resolution 441 calling for the creation of a UN Commission to examine illegal settlements in the occupied territories."

They demand that saddam comply immediately, and comprehensively, with un resolutions, "Blair, Aznar, Berlusconi and the leaders of Denmark and Portugal all signed the letter calling on Europe to stand united with the United States on insisting Iraq disarm. The leaders of the five EU states were joined by candidate countries the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary. "The transatlantic relationship must not become a casualty of the current Iraqi regime's attempts to threaten world security," they wrote in a clear rebuff to France and Germany, sceptics of plans to use force against Baghdad. "We must remain united in insisting that his regime is disarmed." "The Security Council must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions. We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those resolutions."

But, as regards the zionist state, there is no demand for full and immediate compliance. On the contrary, george mcbush suggests negotiations would be needed to implement the uns' resolutions .. "the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 will be ended through a settlement negotiated between the parties based on U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338, with Israeli withdrawal. They insist that iraq has weapons of mass destruction whilst saying nothing about zionists' massive arsenal of such weapons. They insist that weapons' inspectors are allowed into iraq but say nothing about the need for inspectors to go into the zionist state in palestine to find out what the worldless, religious zionists have been up to. According to jude wanniski, "Israel is said to possess several hundred nuclear weapons, as it has never submitted to international inspections or signed the non-proliferation treaty as iraq has." In the middle east, the only mass murdering, crypto-nazi with weapons of mass destruction is ariel sharon. So why is the world focussing on disarming an unarmed saddam whilst ignoring by far and away the greater threat posed by ariel sharon?

Perhaps most bizarrely of all, the united states and brutland are going to war against iraq on the grounds that it refuses to abide by united nations' resolutions .... even though they have no united nations' resolution to legitimize such an attack. How is it possible for countries without a specific united nations' mandate, and in obvious breach of the united nations' opposition to war, to parade themselves as enforcers of united nations' resolutions - especially when america itself is in breech of a united nations' resolution concerning the zionists' illegal occupation of jerusalem.

It is surely one of the biggest ironies since the rise of a unipolar world that the zionists, who are more contemptuous of the united nations than any other country around the world, have been the most vocal advocates of the need for military action against saddam because of his failure to comply in minute detail with un resolutions.

That american and brutish politicians are willing to expose themselves on the world, and domestic, stages as blatant hypocrites says much about zionist domination of america's and brutland's political systems. It reveals all too clearly that in these countries power lies with the zionist lobbies who take their orders from ariel sharon. Mcbush and mcblair are marionettes in the global zionist conspiracy for world domination. Is it not amazing that these leaders of so-called democracies stand in line behind ariel sharon, a former terrorist now turned state terrorist, a war criminal, and a racist? Ariel sharon makes ian paisely look like a girl guide. All that this does is to bring shame on western values and western civilization. It is surely the end of western civilization as we have known it since the age of enlightenment. We are descending into a dark age ruled by ancient judaic scriptures.

The cost of this new axis of evil, the zionist occupied governments of palestine, america, and brutland, is the undermining of nato, the disintegration of the united nations, and the dismissal of international law. The longer the war goes on in the middle east under the control of ariel sharon, the greater the division of the world.

The torrent of lies about saddam hussein that have appeared in the zionist dominated media in both america and brutland, are all too identical to the torrent of lies the zionists put forward about the palestinians. For a brilliant expose of all the lies that were used to push congress/parliament into war against saddam see John R. McArthur's ' An Orwellian Pitch: The inner workings of the war-propaganda machine' But, then again, the zionists have no reason to curb their propaganda excesses, which include bizarre discoveries of nuclear weapons' material in the back of taxis in russia and the most blatantly phoney security scares, because they're not the ones who are going to have to follow up their denunciations by fighting against iraq. They just get american and brutish livestock to lay down their lives for the greater good of the religious nutcases running the racist zionist state in palestine.

There are a number of reasons why zionist war mongers want to topple saddam. Firstly, the zionist state in palestine wants to remove all palestinians from palestine in order to create a racially pure, fundamentalist, talmudic state. It believes its crypto-nazi policy of murdering, and deporting, palestinians is the final solution to the palestinian issue. Zionists want to get rid of saddam because he donates large sums of money to the families of palestinian suicide bombers who inevitably find themselves homeless because the crypto-nazi zionist state demolishes the homes of suicide bombers. The zionist dominated media in america and brutland argue that this sum of money is an incentive to terrorism but in reality it is nothing more than compensation for freedom fighters who lose their homes and have no where to live. In many cases palestinian homes are also workplaces where people manage to scrape together a pitiful living so the demolition of their homes means not merely the loss of a place to live but of their only source of income. The zionists are also engaged in destroying palestinian businesses in order to impoverish the palestinian people.

Secondly, the zionist state in palestine wants to eradicate all opposition to zionists' hegemony in the region. The zionist state in palestine knows that its surreptitious ethnic cleansing of palestinians is causing continual waves of anger in the moslem/arab worlds so it is imperative to suppress all possible sources of resistance. The zionists loathe saddam because he is the only arab leader who refuses to submit to their hegemony over the middle east - he is a symbol of arab defiance against ziono-american colonialism.

Thirdly, the zionists fear that even if saddam doesn't currently have weapons of mass destruction with which to defend his country or to curb zionist aggression, he might one day obtain them. According to jude wanniski, "In their hearts, Richard Perle and his bombers do not work for the American taxpayers ... They work for the Likud Party, which has always pretended to want peace, but has been even more interested in having all of the Promised Land for Israeli Jews, none for the Palestinians who were displaced by the 1948 UN mandate. Why would Perle and Wolfowitz be so eager to get rid of Saddam Hussein? They need a puppet government in Baghdad, don't you see. They intend to get rid of the Palestinians, at the least pushing them into Jordan. And they cannot risk having Saddam in Baghdad become the recipient of the Islamic bomb now in the possession of his friends in Pakistan. Once Saddam has nukes to counter Israel's nukes, it's all over. The Likudniks would have to accept a Palestinian state or be overwhelmed by Islamic radicals."

The fourth reason for toppling saddam is that he is the key which opens the door for the ziono-american military to wage a wider war in the middle eastern. The zionists want to remove weapons of mass destruction from all arab/moslem countries but, at present, the american and brutish publics would probably oppose wars against syria, iran, and libya - especially sequential wars against these countries. Because saddam is a popular figure of hate in america, and to a lesser extent in brutland, the zog of america has popular support for sending in its military to depose him. However, once in iraq it will be much easier for the zog of america to win public approval for attacking other countries. The american and brutish publics are almost completely unaware that the american military is following ariel sharon's strategy which will require a continuous extension of the war beyond iraq to all other arab/moslem countries. Most americans believe that once saddam has been removed then the american military will return home in triumph. In reality the american military will establish permanent bases in iraq and use them to launch wars against iran and syria. William rivers pitt has pointed out that donald kagan .. "sees America establishing permanent military bases in Iraq after the war. This is purportedly a measure to defend the peace in the Middle East, and to make sure the oil flows. " Pitt then argued, "The nations in that region, however, will see this for what it is: a jump-off point for American forces to invade any nation in that region they choose to. The American people, anxiously awaiting some sort of exit plan after America defeats Iraq, will see too late that no exit is planned. "

The ziono-american military is also intent on stopping syria and iran from supplying weapons and munitions to the palestinians.

The zogs of america and brutland see the disarming of iraq as just the first step in the disarming of all countries in the region - thereby giving their zionist paymasters monopoly control over weapons of mass destruction and thus total hegemony in the region. Ariel sharon has been quite explicit on this point, "And now, it was just reported by Aluf Benn and Sharon Sadeh, correspondents for Israel's Haaratz newspaper, that Sharon told a delegation of American congressmen that Iran, Libya and Syria should also be stripped of their weapons, after we deal with Iraq." This position has been known about for several years, "A retired Israeli Defense Force Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Amnon Shahak, has declared, "all methods are acceptable in withholding nuclear capabilities from an Arab state."" The americans are not launching a war against one country. They are launching a regional war against the enemies of the zionist state which means not merely iraq but lebanon, syria, libya, iran and all the terrorist groups in the region such as hezbollah. The american military is already stationed in qatar, afghanistan, saudi arabia, kuwait, and several small former soviet republics in asia, etc so it is in good position to occupy the region and eliminate all arab/moslem opposition to zionist hegemony.

The rationale used by the zogs of palestine, america, and brutland, to justify their attack on iraq will also be used to justify attacks on syria and iran. If iraq is to be attacked because it (allegedly) possesses weapons of mass destruction then the axis of evil will also have to attack syria, "A recent study highlighted Israel's extreme vulnerability to a first strike and an accompanying vulnerability even to a false alarm. Syria's entire defense against Israel seems to rest on chemical weapons and warheads. One scenario involves Syria making a quick incursion into the Golan and then threatening chemical strikes, perhaps with a new, more lethal (protective-mask-penetrable) Russian nerve gas if Israel resists. Their use would drive Israel to nuclear use."

The country that poses the greatest long term threat to the zionist state is iran. This is because firstly, iran is moving towards the creation of nuclear weapons. The zionists are totally opposed to such a development, "The Israeli Air Force commanding general issued a statement saying Israel would "consider an attack" if any country gets "close to achieving a nuclear capability." Secondly, iran is acquiring the technology for long range missiles that could launch such weapons against the zionist state, "This report comes in the wake of a recent Iran Shihab-3 missile test and indications to Israel that Iran is two to three years from a nuclear warhead. Israeli statements stress that Iran's nuclear potential would be a problem to all and would require, "American leadership, with serious participation of the G-7 . . . ." Thirdly, what adds to the potency of iran's threat is that it could unite a large part of the arab world - the shiites in southern lebanon and a 60% shiite majority in iraq, "Israel is concerned about Iran's desire to obtain nuclear weapons and become a regional leader, coupled with large numbers of Shiite Moslems in southern Lebanon." John pilger believes the zogs will prevent the emergence of a democratic state in iraq after the overthrow of saddam partly because this might give too much power to the shi'ites, "The us and britain have no wish to free the iraqi people from a tyranny the cia once described as "its greatest triumph". The last thing they want is a separate kurdish state and another allied to the shi’ite majority in neighbouring iran."

Once again ariel sharon, leader of the zogs, has made his objective clear, 'Now, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has joined the call against Tehran, arguing in a November (2002) interview with the Times of London that the U.S. should shift its focus to Iran 'the day after' the Iraq war ends. [T]he hard-liners in and around the administration seem to know in their hearts that the battle to carve up the Middle East would not be won without the blood of Americans and their allies. 'One can only hope that we turn the region into a caldron, and faster, please,' [Michael] Ledeen preached to the choir at National Review Online last August. 'That's our mission in the war against terror.'"

Zionists are also worried about pakistan's nuclear weapons. As a consequence they have developed an alliance with the indian government to curb this threat, "Current military contacts between Israel and India, another nuclear power, bring up questions of nuclear cooperation. Pakistani sources have already voiced concerns over a possible joint Israeli-Indian attack on Pakistan's nuclear facilities.""

The zionists are hoping to push the american military into a succession of wars against arab/moslem states. They are hoping the american military will occupy the middle east in the same way as the zionist army is occupying palestine. It has to be suggested, however, that if the american military tries to repress the arab/moslem world in the same way as the zionist army is doing to palestinians, then there could be a major regional war. The more the american military acts like a proxy zionist army, the greater the resistance this will provoke amongst arab/moslem peoples, the longer the war will go on.

The second proxy zionist war against iraq is not designed to bring peace to the middle east. In the same way as sharon has deliberately stoked up the conflict with palestinians in order to provide himself with an excuse to demolish palestinian homes, expropriate palestinian land, slaughter palestinian freedom fighters, and deport palestinians, so the zionists in the american administration controlling the american military are intent on using american military power to stir up unrest in the middle east so that they have an excuse to slaughter all those opposed to zionist-american colonialism. The plan is to exterminate zionists' enemies and pacify the region rather than bringing peace, democracy, and prosperity to the arab/moslem world.

"Much of the Bush speech to the American Enterprise Institute was written in the language of Israel. "If war is forced upon us by Iraq's refusal to disarm, we'll meet an enemy who hides his military forces behind civilians, who has terrible weapons, who's capable of any crime." This is precisely the language of Ariel Sharon. The equation that other Arab states are expected to understand is contained in that ominous suggestion by Mr Bush that after the "passing" of Saddam Hussein's regime, "other regimes will be given a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated". Primarily, this is a message for Syria, then for Iran and then for anyone else who has not knelt before the Americans."

"First and foremost, we must bring down the terror regimes, beginning with the Big Three: Iran, Iraq, and Syria. And then we have to come to grips with Saudi Arabia. … Once the tyrants in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia have been brought down, we will remain engaged. …We have to ensure the fulfillment of the democratic revolution. … Stability is an unworthy American mission, and a misleading concept to boot. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia; we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize."

"On July 10, 2002, Perle invited a former aide to Lyndon LaRouche named Laurent Murawiec to address the Defense Policy Board. In a briefing that startled Henry Kissinger, Murawiec named Saudi Arabia as "the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent" of the United States. Washington should give Riyadh an ultimatum, he said. Either you Saudis "prosecute or isolate those involved in the terror chain, including the Saudi intelligence services," and end all propaganda against Israel, or we invade your country, seize your oil fields, and occupy Mecca. In closing his PowerPoint presentation, Murawiec offered a "Grand Strategy for the Middle East." "Iraq is the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot, Egypt the prize." Leaked reports of Murawiec’s briefing did not indicate if anyone raised the question of how the Islamic world might respond to U.S. troops tramping around the grounds of the Great Mosque."

"Norman Podhoretz in Commentary even outdid Kristol’s Standard, rhapsodizing that we should embrace a war of civilizations, as it is George W. Bush’s mission "to fight World War IV–the war against militant Islam." By his count, the regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil (Iraq, Iran, North Korea). At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as ‘"friends" of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority. Bush must reject the "timorous counsels" of the "incorrigibly cautious Colin Powell," wrote Podhoretz, and "find the stomach to impose a new political culture on the defeated" Islamic world."

"Bush administration policy has come a long way but has still not reached what neocons seek: a war by the United States against all of Islam. After the great conquest, the United States would remake the entire region, which would entail forcibly re-educating its people to fall into line with the thinking of America's leaders. Podhoretz acknowledges that the people of the Middle East might, if given a free democratic choice, pick anti-American and anti-Israeli leaders and policies. But he proclaims that "there is a policy that can head it off" provided "that we then have the stomach to impose a new political culture on the defeated parties. This is what we did directly and unapologetically in Germany and Japan after winning World War II.""

"The consequences of our planned attack on Iraq (and also probably Iran, given the size of our forces and their location in proximity to Iran), should cause us all to pause. The Pentagon has announced that we will hit Baghdad with a force almost equal to the bombing of Hiroshima. Obviously many thousands of civilians will perish, with untold thousands maimed. And for what? To liberate them? To bring them freedom? Or democracy? Or is it to really secure the world's second largest oil reserve and establish a base from which to subjugate other Middle Eastern nations? Is it also the plan for Israel to use the cover of war to forcibly relocate the Palestinian population (as has been publicly stated by some members of Israel's current government)?"

Firstly, there is no evidence that saddam has weapons of mass destruction or, if he has, that he could use them. The americans and the brutish do not have the right to remove weapons which iraq needs to defend itself and since the zionist state possesses weapons of mass destruction then iraq has the right to defend itself by possessing similar weapons. MAD is the only safe policy in a rapidly industrializing world.

Secondly, the americans and the brutish are not so much preventing an alleged madman from having (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction but preventing a country from having such weapons. The americans and brutish are not removing weapons of mass destruction from a madman, they are preventing iraq from ever possessing such weapons. So, even if the americans manage to install a succession of quislings in iraq, they will never allow these quislings to possess weapons that would enable iraq to defend itself against the belligerent zionist state let alone threaten the zionist state.

Thirdly, the americans and the brutish argue that without saddam and his system of state apparatus of oppression, the region will once again be able to prosper. Unfortunately, in order to prevent iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction it is necessary to prevent the country from industrializing. There are a huge number of industrial processes that would have to be banned because they not merely provide chemicals for the normal functioning of an industrialized country, but could be used to produce weapons of mass destruction. The ban on such weapons in iraq is thus a recipe for the country's continued impoverishment.

Fourthly, once the americans have disarmed iraq, and installed a quisling westernized dictator, they are intent on doing the same to other arab/moslem countries. They say they want to rid the middle east of weapons of mass destruction but they have no intention of disarming the zionists. This will give the zionist state a monopoly over such weapons and thus total domination over the region. In effect, what they will do is render arab countries defenceless. Some might believe it would be good for the world if 6 million peace-loving zionists controlled a hundred million irrational, semi-civilized, arabs. This policy will humiliate the arab world but what it also means is that arab countries will never be allowed to become fully industrialized nations. This will lead to the further impoverishment of the region rather than to social and political improvements. The zog governments of palestine, america, and brutland, are intent on turning arabs into the world's untouchables. There are those, however, who might suggest that allowing 6 million racists to be given control over 100 million arabs in the middle east, and a billion moslems around the world, is a recipe for permanent conflict.

Mcbush claims that one of the objectives of the zogs' war against iraq and other arab countries will be to replace arab dictators (most of whom have been installed by america) with democratic governments. There is no likelihood of this. According to john pilger, "The us and britain have no wish to free the iraqi people from a tyranny the cia once described as "its greatest triumph". The last thing they want is a separate kurdish state and another allied to the shi’ite majority in neighbouring iran. They want another saddam hussein: one who will do as he is told."

It might also have been thought the american public would object vehemently to the idea of americans sacrificing their lives to promote the interests of zionists in palestine - especially given the fact that many of these zionists hold them, and the rest of the non-jewish, world in utter contempt. However, such is the zionist domination of the political processes in america, and in brutland, and such is the zionist domination of the american (and brutish) media that these facts play no part in the political debate about the pending slaughter of defenceless iraqi people. The zionists are pushing the americans into doing their dirty work for them and disarming their enemies.

Since the end of the second world war it is likely there would have been little trouble in the middle east if it wasn't for zionists setting up a zionist state. Although palestinians and arabs have accepted the existence of the zionist state, crackpot talmudic zionists have insisted on carrying out the will of god by reclaiming the sacred land of israel: firstly, by murdering palestinians or forcing them out of their own country and, secondly, by annexing more and more arab land. Zionist fundamentalists can achieve their goal of a racially pure, talmudic, zionist state only by constantly provoking violence from palestinians and arab countries to enable them to expropriate more palestinian/arab land.

Menachem begin, yitzak shamir, benjamin netanyahu, and ariel sharon, have deliberately stirred up palestinian violence against zionists, because palestinian retaliation increases their public support. This increase in popular support allows them to pursue even more extreme measures against the palestinians thereby provoking more palestinian violence. They have continually and vehemently oppressed the palestinian people, instigated a shoot to kill policy, permitted military snipers with high powered rifles to randomly shoot unarmed palestinian civilians, carried out acts of collective punishment on innocent palestinian people by bulldozing their homes, and carried out acts of mass land theft at every opportunity. They are crypto-nazi racists with a religious bent.

The zionists also oppress palestinians in order to provoke moslems throughout the middle east, and to foster anti-semitism around the world in the hope of driving diasporan jews back to the sacred land of israel. The racist zionists in palestine, america, and brutland have been feulling anti-moslem hatred around the world.

It has to be suggested that ariel sharon is by far and away the biggest threat to world peace, not saddam hussein. The american and brutish governments should insist that the zionist state should dismantle its weapons of mass destruction and allow in weapons inspectors to ensure this is done. They should threaten to bomb the zionist state into submission until it complies with such resolutions. The americans and the brutish should bomb the zionist state in palestine not iraq. It's time that weapons inspectors were sent into the zionist state in palestine and the country disarmed before the biggest madman in the middle east, ariel sharon, uses his weapons of mass destruction.

The american government's determination to topple saddam in what is a pre-emptive war is illegal under international law. This war is even more morally repugnant given that the world's sole superpower is attacking what is, in effect, one of the world's most defenceless countries. America's support for a pre-emptive war is seen as being another example of american unilateralism. Even though mcbush went to the united nations to win support from the rest of the world, he stated clearly he would act unilaterally without the agreement of the united nations - it is ironic that mcbush is going to attack iraq because it refuses to abide by un resolutions when there is no un resolution for such a war.

And yet it would be a mistake to depict the pending war against iraq as an example of american unilateralism since this implies the decision to fight such a war had been made by american (wasp) politicians for the sake of protecting or enhancing american interests. This is not the case. America is not threatened in the slightest by iraq. Iraq poses a threat only to the zionist state - which, these days is more of a vocal threat than a military threat. The american government is not acting unilaterally because this 'unilateralist' policy has been formulated by america's zionist lobby promoting the interests of the zionist state in palestine. What is happening is that the zionist lobby in america, the zionist dominated media in america, and the zionist state in palestine, have not merely taken control of the american political system but have infected american politicians with their uncompromising, unilateralist attitudes i.e. outright contempt not merely for palestinians but for the united nations and, beyond them, the rest of the world. The world's media has never attempted to expose the level of contempt that religious zionists have for the rest of the world - primarily because this media is dominated by zionists. And yet it is the poison dripping from these god-loving bigots that is stirring up animosities towards moslems.

Firstly, the united nations' resolution creating a zionist state was illegal since the united nations does not have a mandate to carve up countries. Secondly, the zionist state was created through violence and has been sustained by repeated acts of violence. Thirdly, it constantly uses violence to force palestinians to leave their homes and their land - in other words a de facto deportation policy no different from that supported by slobodan milosovic. Fourthly, the zionist state is in defiance of more united nations' resolutions than saddam hussein. It has to be concluded that the zionist state is the most appalling roque state in the world. It behaves in a completely illegal way because its only interest is in obeying the laws of god not those made by oomans.

It might be suggested that these acts of illegality stem simply from the instincts for self preservation of a people desperately struggling to survive when surrounded by a hostile (arabic) world. But this is far from being the case. Zionist unilateralism derives primarily from zionists' contempt for the non-zionist world as a result of the nazis' slaughter of jews during the second world war. The zionists are not merely contemptuous of nazis and germans but of the whole world which, it believes, stood by and allowed such appalling atrocities to take place. Even worse, zionists, especially religiously minded zionists, believe that all non-jews are potential nazis. They believe they are surrounded by vast hordes of moslem/arab enemies who, in turn, are surrounded by even greater hordes of european, african, and asian, anti-semites, anti-zionists, jew-haters, and out and out nazis. As a result of the nazi carnage during the second world war, zionists refuse to take any notice of other peoples, other governments, or global institutions - despite the fact that this was an event which occurred sixty years ago. They do not want to compromise their security by relying on other nations for military protection - no matter how much they are willing to use such help if it is offered without strings attached. They will not abide by decisions reached by global institutions. They refuse to recognize the united nations when it runs counter to their interests. Zionists are not in the slightest bit interested in adhering to international law. This refusal to rely on other peoples/governments, this refusal to abide by international decisions or international law, derives from zionists' contempt for the non-jewish world. America's new found unilateralism stems directly, and almost exclusively, from the preponderance of zionists in the american administration who habour extreme unilateralists views.

The war against iraq, and the rest of the arab/moslem world, is a total distraction from the fact that oomans are pushing the Earth's life support system towards a global ecological breakdown. Zionist war mongers have successfully pushed the Earth summit and environmental issues completely off the political agendas in both america and brutland. The zionists in the american administration are not in the least bit interested in environmental issues and have persuaded the american government to dismiss such issues despite the fact that, since the start of the environmental movement, america has been the champion of environmental protection. Zionist war mongering is preventing the world from formulating global environmental policies to combat global burning, stabilize the climate, and create a sustainable planet. In addition, zogs' wars will add to oomans' devastation of their life support system on Earth.

Zionists are not interested in environmentalism but they are interested in the end of the world. They are suffering from a religious dementia in which they welcome the end of the world because they believe this will inaugurate the arrival of a divine zionist messiah. Zionists are willing to sacrifice the entire world for the sake of a zionist messiah - although whether these extreme fundamentalist bigots will be in any fit state of mental health to recognize this person is more than questionable - especially if s/he turns out to be a palestinian!

The left refuse to face the facts and blame the war on the rise of global zionary because it is caught in a trap of its own making. Lefties' anti-racist stance makes it virtually impossible for them to criticize the racism of the zionist lobbies in america and brutland, or the racist nature of the zionist state, since such criticisms would be regarded as anti-semitic or racist. According to their myopic anti-racist tenets, blaming the zionist lobby in america for pressuring the american government into fighting a proxy zionist war against iraq is a neo-fascist explanation. The zionists are turning anti-racist lefties into racists. They are the anti-racist racists. The poor old lefties, having fought racism for the last half century, are completely unable to recognize they are now being led by the nose by racists into condoning zionist racism.

The left pretends the war against iraq is solely about oil. The extreme right, however, is in just as much of a quandary. They are now faced with having to choose whether they hate jews more, or less, than they hate moslems. They can support the american/brutish war to the extent that it oppresses arab peoples but only at the expense of reducing opposition to the zionist state. Or they can oppose the war in the hope of weakening the zionist state but only at the expense of reducing opposition to moslems. In other words, those on the right have to ask themselves whether they hate arabs/moslems more than they hate jews and thus support the war or whether they hate jews more than arabs/moslems and oppose it. Some american right wingers are pleased that america has launched a war to give them global supremacy but others object that this has been done not merely in co-operation with jews but is being led by the zionist state. They thus support the goal of the war but not the means to achieve it.

The 1980s were marked by the rise of reaganism in america and thatcherism in brutland. In the 1990s the political pendulum swung in the opposite direction with bill clinton and tony mcblair. There was a certain parallel between what was happening in america and what then happened in brutland. However, at the moment, in brutland, the right are on the verge of disintegration. They have no philosophy, no policies, and no ideas, with which to appeal to the brutish public. On the other hand, in america. the right wing are in the political and philosophical ascendancy. But this is not because right wing wasps have lots of new policies and new ideas to attract the support of large numbers of right wing americans. It is primarily because zionist politicians, the zionist lobby, and the zionist media, have used the p*ny bombings to shape american public opinion into focussing solely on terrorist issues. The zionists' belligerent, often insane, response to this event has attracted the support of large sections of the public in zionist dominated palestine, brutland, and america.

America's war against the arab world does not indicate the ascendancy of wasp conservatives in the american political system. This is because, it ought to be remembered, they are basically isolationists. During mcbush's presidential campaign wasp conservatives promoted american isolationism to prevent american troops from becoming embroiled in conflicts around the world - some of which, they feared, might result in retaliatory attacks on america. They demanded the withdrawal of american troops stationed in many countries around the world and insisted the american government should allow conflicts around the world, including that in palestine, to resolve themselves. Such ideas currently have no role in american politics. The demands for america to intervene around the world; to station troops throughout the middle east and central asia; and to extend the war against terrorism to iraq, syria, iran, and the palestinians, are policies initiated by zionists aimed, primarily, at furthering the goals of the zionist state in palestine.

As an indication of just how irrelevant wasps have become in the mcbush administration, some traditional conservatives are even opposed to the war in iraq and the wider regional war against the arab/moslem world. One wasp conservative highlighted his opposition to the war in terms of traditional conservative values, "A strong majority of nationally-syndicated conservative columnists have come out against this war. James Webb, a hero in Vietnam and President Reagan's Secretary of the Navy, wrote: "The issue before us is not whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years."

* It is a traditional conservative position to be against huge deficit spending. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that a very short war followed by a five-year occupation of Iraq would cost the U.S. $272 billion, this on top of an estimated $350 billion deficit for the coming fiscal year.

* It is a traditional conservative position to be against the U.S. being the policeman of the world. That is exactly what we will be doing if we go to war in Iraq.

* It is a traditional conservative position to be against huge foreign aid, which has been almost a complete failure for many years now. Talk about huge foreign aid — Turkey is demanding $26 to $32 billion according to most reports. Israel wants $12 to $15 billion additional aid. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia want additional aid in unspecified amounts. Almost every country that is supporting the U.S. in this war effort wants something in return. The cost of all these requests have not been added in to most of the war cost calculations. All this to fight a bad man who has a total military budget of about $1.4 billion, less than 3/10 of one percent of ours.

* It is a traditional conservative position to be in favor of a strong national defense, not one that turns our soldiers into international social workers, and to believe in a noninterventionist foreign policy rather than in globalism or internationalism."

These traditional conservative values provide a stark contrast to the values being promoted by his gung-ho, war-mongering, zionist colleagues. His objections to the war reveal just how irrelevant conservative ideas and philosophy have become in an age of zionist global domination

The american right wing has always consisted of a variety of factions. The traditional conservatives highlighted above form one such group but another consists of the evangelical christians such as the christian coalition of america (formerly led by pat robertson) and the moral majority led by jerry falwell. The evangelical christians believe that zionists' occupation of israel was foretold in the bible. In their eyes this gives a religious, moral legitimacy to what the zionists are doing. "The placards round the hall insist that every inch of the Holy Land should belong to Israel and that there should never be a Palestinian state. These assertions are backed up by biblical quotations. It could be a rally in Jerusalem for those Israelis who think Ariel Sharon is a dangerous softie. But something very strange is going on here. There are thousands of people cheering for Israel in the huge Washington Convention Centre. But not one of them appears to be Jewish, at least not in the conventional sense. For this is the annual gathering of a very non-Jewish organisation indeed: the Christian Coalition of America."; "Thousands of Evangelical Christians waving Israeli flags cheered last week as Knesset member Benny Elon called for the "relocation" of Palestinians from the West Bank into Jordan. Elon, whose Moledet Party advocates the "transfer" of Palestinians to Arab countries,said that a "resettlement" of the Palestinians is prescribed by the Bible."

However, there is an even more powerful force motivating the evangelical christians. Many of them believe in the theory of "dispensationalism" as popularised in the novels of the rev tim lahaye and jerry jenkins. Their interpretation of the bible suggests that the return of the messiah, the end of the world, and the start of heaven on Earth, depends on the jews taking possession of all god's land i.e. palestine. In other words, sharon's extreme racist policies are supported by christians who care nothing about this world but who look forward to a life of eternal heavenly bliss. It is hardly surprising that these christian fundamentalists are even more hardline than ariel sharon as regards the palestinians! Matthew engel points out that, "In a country where weekly church attendance is about 20 times the level it is in Britain (40% v 2%), the relationship between religion and politics in the US is intense. And there is little doubt that, last spring, when President Bush dithered and dallied over his Middle East policy before finally coming down on Israel's side, he was influenced not by the overrated Jewish vote, but by the opinion of Christian "religious conservatives" - the self-description of between 15 and 18% of the electorate. When the president demanded that Israel withdraw its tanks from the West Bank in April, the White House allegedly received 100,000 angry emails from Christian conservatives." Paradoxically, whilst sharon may be all too pleased with this massive support from evangelical christians, he probably wasn't too chuffed to discover that the jews will be saved only if they convert to christianity and recognize the return of the messiah - otherwise they'll be condemned, like all other non-believers, to an everlasting life in the devil's gas chambers. Still, he may have adopted the attitude that 'why not enjoy the fantasy whilst it lasts'. He .. "was "reportedly greeted "like a rock star" by Christian evangelicals in Jerusalem last month (september 2002)."

The evangelical christians support for zionists contrasts markedly with their hatred of moslems. Jerry falwell took the logic of the evangelical christians' views to their logical extreme when he argued that mohammed was a terrorist. But he obviously could not forget his traditional enemies when he suspected that attacks on zionists were due among others to .. "the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians".

Michael jansen has pointed out that it's a pecularity of the ziono-american war-mongers that many of them are draft-dodgers, "Those Americans who most vociferously advocate war against Iraq are the very same ones who avoided battle duty in their youth."; "Bush's holiday reading includes ‘Supreme Command’ by Eliot Cohen, a professor at Johns Hopkin's school of advanced international studies, an influential posting for an aspiring policy maker. It is significant that Wolfowitz was a former dean of the school and Cohen now sits on the Perle chaired board which advises Rumsfeld. Although he served as an intelligence officer in the army reserve, he counts as yet another chickenhawk because he did not set foot on a battlefield during a conflict. Cohen claims that he is conducting "policy-relevant basic research" and not acting as an advocate of "war, war, war." His book says otherwise."; "While Wolfowitz is pressing for war against Saddam Hussein, Keller notes his "scholarly detachment" from the disastrous Vietnam War (as remote as the War of the Roses?), in which, while eligible, he had chosen not to serve."

Is it not incredible that the war against saddam was initiated and planned by crypto-nazi, religious fundamentalists, such as ariel sharon, the zionist lobby in america, and the zionist fifth columnists in the american government, long before the p*ny bombings? Is it not incredible that mcbush and mcblair are standing shoulder to shoulder with ariel sharon, a former member of an einsatsgruppen terrorist organization, a war criminal, and a state terrorist. Zionists in the mcbush administration are intent on using the american military in the middle east to pursue a purely zionist agenda - protecting the interests of the zionist state in palestine. The issue is not how is it going to be possible to get rid of saddam but how is it going to be possible to curb the appalling zionist traitors in the american government before they sacrifice the lives of even more american and brutish troops by pushing america and brutland into attacking syria, iran, libya, the lebanon, saudi arabia etc. Zionists in and around the mcbush administration are tearing apart international relationships, nato, the united nations and international law, simply in order to promote the interests of the zionist state. Ann pettifer has argued, "And on the BBC World Service, The Washington Times' Barry Fein proclaimed war as absolutely necessary, saying that from now on the US would decide what constituted international law. There is real madness here, but who will stop it?

All publications are copyrighted mundi club © You are welcome to quote from these publications as long as you acknowledge the source - and we'd be grateful if you sent us a copy.	We welcome additional information, comments, or criticisms. Email: carbonomics@yahoo.co.uk The Mundi Club Website: http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/
To respond to points made on this website visit our blog at http://mundiclub.blogspot.com/

The 2003 Invasion of Iraq: The Wrong Victim, the Wrong Cause, the Wrong War, and the Wrong Philosophy.