Translating Words, Interpreting Events

The Double-Edged Sword of Jihad

Print Friendly

Islamic nations are again learning that the jihad is a volatile instrument of war that can easily backfire on those who preach it; that “holy war” is hardly limited to fighting and subjugating “infidels”—whether the West in general, Israel in particular, or the millions of non-Muslim minorities under Islam—but can also be used to fight “apostates,” that is, Muslims accused of not being Islamic enough.

In an unprecedented move and following Egypt’s lead, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain recently withdrew their ambassadors from Qatar, largely due to its Al Jazeera propaganda network which, since the ousting of the Muslim Brotherhood, has been inciting chaos in the region.

According to a March 7 Reuters reports, “Saudi Arabia has formally designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, in a move that could increase pressure on Qatar whose backing for the group has sparked a row with fellow Gulf monarchies….  Saudi Arabia and the UAE are fuming over Qatar’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood, and resent the way Doha has sheltered influential cleric Yusuf Qaradawi, a critic of the Saudi authorities, and given him regular airtime on its pan-Arab satellite channel Al Jazeera.”

Qaradawi, of course, has been an Al Jazeera mainstay for many years, regularly preaching jihad against Israel and other “infidels”—telling millions of Muslim viewers to “obey the prophet, even if he tells you to kill.”

Back then, Qaradawi was not a problem for the Gulf States.

However, since the Egyptian June 30 Revolution saw the ousting and subsequent banning of the Muslim Brotherhood, and ever since the Brotherhood’s supporters—chief among them Qaradawi, through his Al Jazeera program—have been inciting violence in the region, especially in Egypt and Syria, the jihad is spinning out of control; and the Gulf monarchs know that, if not contained and directed, it can easily reach them.

For if jihadis are fighting fellow Muslims in Egypt and Syria—under the accusation that they are not “true” Muslims—what is to stop them from targeting the Gulf monarchies in the same context?

Thus, although the Saudis originally promoted the jihad against the Syrian government—sending and supporting militants, both Saudi and otherwise—in a complete reverse, the Arabian kingdom has just designated several of these jihadi organizations, including the Nusra Front and the Islamic State in Iraq and Levant, as “terrorist” organizations.

This move, according to Reuters, “underscored concern about young Saudis hardened by battle against Assad coming home to target the ruling Al Saud royal family—as has happened after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

And so history repeats itself.  Back in the 1980s, the Saudis were chief supporters of the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan and helped create al-Qaeda.  But once the “distant” infidel was subdued, al-Qaeda and its Saudi-born leader Osama bin Laden came home to roost, doing the inevitable: pointing the accusatory finger at the Saudi monarchy for not being Islamic enough, including for its reliance on the great American infidel during the First Gulf War.

This is the problem all Muslim nations and rulers risk: no one—not even Sharia-advocating Islamist leaders—are immune to the all-accusing sword tip of the jihad.  If non-Muslims are, as “infidels,” de facto enemies of Islam, any Muslim can be accused of “apostasy” whenever they break this or that Sharia command, and thus also become enemies of Allah and his prophet.

A saying attributed to the Muslim prophet Muhammad even validates this: “This umma [nation] of mine will split into seventy-three sects; one will be in paradise and seventy-two will be in hell.”  When asked which sect was the true one, the prophet replied, “al-jama‘a,” that is, the group which most literally follows the example or “sunna” of Muhammad, a thing not so simple to do.

Moreover, the first large scale jihads were against apostates—the Ridda [“apostasy”] Wars.  After Muhammad died in 632, many Arab tribes were still willing to remain Muslim, but had second thoughts about paying zakat money to the first caliph, Abu Bakr.  That was enough to declare jihad on them as apostates; tens of thousands of Arabs were burned, beheaded, dismembered, or crucified, according to Islamic history.

Indeed, Qaradawi himself, while discussing the importance of killing any Muslim who apostatizes from Islam on a live Al Jazeera program, correctly declared that “If the penalty for apostasy was ignored, there would not be an Islam today; Islam would have ended on the death of the prophet.”

All this further explains why nations like Saudi Arabia fund and support external jihads—to keep the zealots away from them, busy fighting distant infidels (a “better them than me” mentality).

But now that the Egyptian military ousted the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Jazeera, Qaradawi, and many others are inciting millions of Muslim viewers to wage an increasingly broadening if not reckless jihad in the region—Qaradawi recently went so far as to call on the U.S. to fight against Muslims for the sake of Allah—the Gulf states know they better act now before they are engulfed in chaos.

Accordingly, on March 7, and in the context of recalling their ambassadors from Qatar, the Saudi Interior Ministry issued a statement saying that “those who insult other countries and their leaders” or who “attended conferences or gatherings inside and outside (the country) that aim to target the security and stability and spread sedition in the society,” would be punished—a clear reference to those many voices calling for a grand jihad in the region.

This is the great irony of Islam—one of the many balancing acts Muslim nations and leaders must live with.  As Muslims, they must of course agree to the Islamic duty of jihad against enemies, real or imagined, and help promote it.  In this sense, jihad can be a powerful and useful weapon.  Saudi Arabia, for example, is not only a chief disseminator and supporter of the Salafi ideology most associated with jihad, but was forged in large measure by articulating and calling for holy war in the 19th-20th centuries, including against Turks and fellow Arab tribes (both Muslim).

The Saudi argument was, ironically, the same as the current argument made by the jihadi forces the Saudis are now trying to neutralize—that the Turks and Arab tribes were not “Islamic” enough.

Yet now it is the Muslim Brotherhood and its many allies who are accusing the Saudis of not being Islamic enough.

Such is the double-edged sword of jihad.   All Islamic governments, regimes, and kingdoms must always try to direct this potent instrument of war against enemies or neutral targets—preferably ones far away from their borders (Afghanistan, America, etc.)  For they know that the longer the jihad waxes in strength and goes uncontained, the more it becomes like an all-consuming fire indiscriminately scorching all in its path.

, , , , , , , ,

  • voxcantor
  • Larry



    Afghani’s occult influence, as the leader of the Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor,
    divided in two directions. The first was the evolution of the Salafi movement
    into the notorious Muslim Brotherhood, while the second were the Nazis of Germany. The Nazis were the result of a merging of the O.T.O of Crowley and the Thule
    Gesellschaft of Germany.

    The doctrines of the Thule order were founded on The Coming Race by the Bulwer-Lytton and the theory of the Atlantean origins of the Aryan race developed by Blavatsky. In 1919, the members of the Thule Society formed a political party named the “German Workers Party”. This in turn was later renamed the “National Socialist German Workers’ Party”, more popularly known as the Nazis, by Adolph Hitler in 1920.

    When Hitler came to power in the 1930s, he and Nazi intelligence made contact
    with a Egyptian named Hassan al Banna, to see if they could work together.(1) Born
    in 1906, Banna was reportedly a Freemason, developed from the influence of the
    three Salafi reformers, Afghani, Abduh and Rida. Banna’s father was a student of Abduh, while Banna himself was greatly influenced by Rashid Rida. By age twenty-one, Banna was introduced to the leadership of Al-Manar, founded by
    Rida, and, beginning in the early 1920s, would often meet and discuss with Rida. Through Rida, Banna developed his opposition to Western influence in Egypt, in
    favour of “pure Islam”, meaning the pernicious version of Wahhabism.

    Banna was also a devout admirer of Hitler. Banna’s letters to Hitler were so
    supportive that he and other members of the Brotherhood were recruited by Nazi
    Military Intelligence to provide information on the British and work covertly to undermine British control in Egypt. Banna himself said that he had “considerable admiration for the Nazi Brownshirts” and organized his own forces along fascist lines. (2)

    Banna’s Brotherhood also collaborated with the overtly fascist “Young Egypt”
    movement, founded in October 1933 by lawyer Ahmed Hussein and modeled directly
    on the Hitler party, complete with paramilitary Green Shirts, aping the Nazi Brown Shirts, Nazi salute and literal translations of Nazi slogans. Among its members, Young Egypt counted two later presidents, Gamal Nasser and Anwar Sadat.

    As Robert Dreyfuss described, in Hostage to Khomeini, a revealing look at the conspiracy to promote the Muslim Brotherhood:

    The Muslim Brotherhood is a London creation, forged as the standard-bearer of an ancient, anti-religious (pagan) heresy that has plagued Islam since the establishment of the Islamic community (umma) by the Prophet Mohammed in the seventh century. Representing organized Islamic fundamentalism, the organization called the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan al-Muslimun in Arabic) was officially founded in Egypt, in 1929, by the British agent Hasan al-Banna, a Sufi mystic. Today, the Muslim Brotherhood is the umbrella under which a host of fundamentalist Sufi, Sunni, and radical Shiite
    brotherhoods and societies flourish.

    In the summer of 1942, when German General Erwin Rommel’s Afrikakorps were poised to march into Cairo, Anwar Sadat, Gamal Nasser and their cronies were in touch with the attacking German force and, with help from the Muslim Brotherhood, were preparing an anti-British uprising in Cairo.

    A treaty with Germany had been drafted by Sadat, which included provisions for German recognition of an independent but pro-Axis Egypt and guaranteeing that “no British soldier would leave Cairo alive.” When Rommel’s push failed in the fall of 1942, Sadat and several of his co-conspirators were arrested by the British, and sat out much of the remainder of the war in jail.

    After the defeat of Nazi Germany, Cairo became a safe haven for several thousand Nazi fugitives. Several of the Germans, recognizing British puppet King Farouk’s political weakness, soon began conspiring with Nasser and his “Free Officers” who, in turn, were working closely with the Muslim Brotherhood, to overthrow the king. When Banna was assassinated by Egyptian officials in 1949, the movement was destabilized, but not for long.

    On July 23, 1952, a coup d’etat was carried out by the Free Officers with
    Brotherhood assistance. Newsweek marveled that,

    “The most intriguing aspect [of] the revolt … was the role played in the coup by the large group of German advisors serving with the Egyptian army… The young officers who did the actual planning consulted the German advisors as to ‘tactics’… This
    accounted for the smoothness of the operation.” (3)

    Assisting the Egyptians in coordinating with the Nazis was the CIA, headed by Allen Dulles. A 33rd Degree Freemason and Knight Templar, Allen Dulles was also a founding member of the CFR, an in-law of the Rockefellers, Chairman of the Board of the Rockefeller Foundation, and Board Chairman of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Prior to working for the CIA, Dulles was a director of the J. Henry Schroeder bank in London, a prime instrument employed by Montagu Norman in his financial support of Nazi Germany. Allen Dulles served with the U.S. Office of Strategic Services (OSS), which would eventually become the CIA and of which he would become the head.

    Miles Copeland, a former CIA operative specializing in the Middle East, revealed in his autobiography, The Game Player, that in 1951 and 1952 the CIA became interested in Nasser through a project known secretly as “The Search for a Moslem Billy Graham.” According to Copeland, who activated the project in 1953, the CIA needed a charismatic leader in order to divert the growing anti-American hostility that was dominant at the time. (4)

    In March 1952, Kermit “Kim” Roosevelt, grandson of President Roosevelt, who headed the CIA Near East Operations, had begun a series of meetings with Nasser which led to the coup four months later. Then, when Nasser wanted to overhaul Egypt’s secret service, he turned to the CIA. However, the U.S. government “found it highly impolitic to help [Nasser] directly,” Copeland recalled in his memoirs, so the CIA instead secretly bankrolled more than a hundred Nazi espionage and military experts to train Egyptian police and army units in the mid-1950s. (5)

    Dulles turned to Reinhard Gehlen, the most senior eastern front military intelligence officer, who, just before the end of WWII, had turned himself over to the U.S.
    In exchange for his extensive intelligence contacts in the USSR, Dulles and the OSS
    reunited Gehlen with his Nazi associates to establish “the Gehlen Organisation”, which then functioned within the OSS and later the CIA. (6)

    By the early 1950s, Reinhard Gehlen was in charge of developing the new German intelligence service. To build Egypt’s spy and security forces, Gehlen hired the best man he knew for the job, former SS colonel Otto Skorzeny, who was described by the OSS, as “the most dangerous man in Europe”. It was Skorzeny who, at the end of the war, organized the infamous ODESSA network, the purpose of which was to establish and facilitate secret escape routes, called ratlines, out of Germany to South America and the Middle East for hunted members. With ties to Argentina, Egypt, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, and the Vatican, they operated out of Buenos Aires and helped Adolf Eichmann, Erich Priebke, Aribert Heim and many other war criminals find refuge in Latin America and the Middle East.

    Mengele was also among the hundreds of high-ranking Nazis which the US intelligence and military services extricated from Germany during and after the final stages of World War II, known as Operation Paperclip. Of particular interest were scientists specializing in aerodynamics and rocketry, such as those involved in the V-1 and V-2 projects, chemical weapons, chemical reaction technology and medicine. However, Christopher Simpson shows how the CIA hired former Nazis “for their expertise in propaganda and psychological warfare,” and other purposes. (7)

    The plan was to employ the age-old indoctrination methods of the Ismaili Assassins and to continue to create mind-controlled agent-provocateurs, more commonly known as “terrorists”. In 1952 Dulles founded Banque Commerciale Arabe in Lausanne, Switzerland, representing a pact between the CIA and the Muslim Brotherhood, which is comprised of Saudi royal family members. The bank was co-founded by a longtime British intelligence agent, Benoist Mechin, a protégé of Jack Philby.

    Dean Henderson, author of Geopolitics: The Global Economy of Big Oil, Weapons and Drugs, summarizes the nature of this relationship:

    Part of this Faustian bargain may have involved the House of Saud chieftains providing information to US intelligence on how to create mind-controlled assassins. The Muslim Brotherhood claims to have first perfected this technique during the 11th century Crusades when it launched a brutal parallel secret society known as the Assassins, who employed mind-controlled “lone hit-men” to carry out political assassinations of Muslim Saracen nationalists. The Assassins worked in concert with Knights Templar Catholic invaders in their attacks on progressive Arabs, but were repelled. (8)

    With Skorzeny now on the job of assisting Nasser, Egypt became a safe haven for Nazi war criminals. Ultimately, the Free Officers coup was the work of many foreign intelligence agencies, though especially the British, French and American, in collusion with the Muslim Brotherhood.
    However, tensions eventually grew between the Free Officers and the Brotherhood. Nasser emerged in 1954, naming himself prime minister, and when his government moved towards a confrontation with the British, the Brotherhood was directed to wage war against him. To that effect, the Brotherhood received assistance from Israeli intelligence, for which reason, among others, it was accused by Al Ahram, and other Egyptian press, as being the tool of imperialists “and the Zionists”.(9)


    1 Loftus, John. Al Qaeda Terrorists Nazi Connection.

    2 Erikson, Marc. “Islamism, fascism and terrorism” (Part 3). Asia Times,
    Dec 4, 2002

    3 Ibid.

    4 Jamil, Athar, “CIA: tool of American colonialism, past and present,” [PDF] KCom Journal, June 30, 2001.

    5 quoted from Lee, Martin A. “The Swastika & the Crescent” Intelligence Report.
    Spring 2002, Issue 105.

    6 Erikson, Marc. “Islamism, fascism and terrorism” (Part 3). Asia Times, Dec 4, 2002.

    7 Blowback, quoted from Binion, Carla. Nazis and Bush
    family history: Government investigated Bush family’s financing of Hitler.
    December 21, 2000.

    8 Henderson, Dean. “The Shah of Iran
    and David Rockefeller”. excerpted from Geopolitics:
    The Global Economy of Big Oil, Weapons and Drugs.

    9 Dreyfuss, Hostage to Khomeini, p. 248.


    So when Nasser threatened to nationalise the Suez Canal, so important as a
    conduit for oil cargo to Europe and elsewhere, the Rothschilds employed their assassins from the Muslim Brotherhood against him. The Rothschilds had maintained an interest in the canal, ever since Baron Lionel de Rothschild financed his friend’s Bejamin Disraeli’s purchase of the canal for the British government in 1875.

    When Brotherhood members fired shots at Nasser in 1954, the group was forcibly suppressed by the government, with thousands of members being imprisoned. Six of its leaders were tried and executed for treason and many others were imprisoned. Interrogations revealed that the Muslim Brotherhood functioned virtually as a German Intelligence unit. As well, as divulged by Copeland:

    Nor was that all. Sound beatings of the Moslem Brotherhood organizers who had been arrested revealed that the organization had been thoroughly penetrated, at the top, by the British, American, French and Soviet intelligence services, any one of which could either make active use of it or blow it up, whichever best suited its purposes. Important lesson: fanaticism is no insurance against corruption; indeed, the two are highly compatible. (10)

    The CIA also became concerned over Nasser’s leanings towards the Soviet Union. Great Britain and the United States had originally agreed to help finance the first stage of Nasser’s Aswan High Dam project. Although, in 1956, the U.S. secretary of state John Foster Dulles, cancelled the U.S. offer, and the next day Britain
    ollowed suit. Five days later, Nasser announced the nationalisation of the Suez Canal, promising that the tolls Egypt collected would in five years pay for the dam.

    In response to Nasser’s nationalisation of the Canal, the United Kingdom and France, with the help of Israel, invaded the Sinai and much of Port Said, sending the Egyptian military into retreat. However, due to pressure from both the United States and the Soviet Union, the British and the French had to withdraw. Though Israel
    did achieve the cessation of Egyptian raids, Nasser was hailed as having achieved a victory for the Arab world.

    Fleeing members of the Muslim Brotherhood were then shuttled to the CIA’s ally,
    Saudi Arabia. When John Loftus, a Justice Department official in the eighties, was permitted to peruse classified government documents, he discovered that the British
    Secret Service convinced American intelligence that the Arab Nazis of the
    Muslim Brotherhood would be indispensable as “freedom fighters” in preparation for the next major war, which was anticipated against the Soviet Union. Kim Philby, the Soviet agent who infiltrated the British Secret Service, and the son of “Abdullah” Philby, helped the US acquire these Arab Nazis, then being expelled from Egypt, who were afterwards sent to Saudi Arabia. There, according to Loftus, “they were given jobs as religion education instructors.”(11)

    Thus, beginning in the 1960s, the Salafi became more formally allied to the Wahhabis, who became the principal patrons of the Brotherhood, which set up
    branches in most Arab states. With the CIA’s tacit approval, the Saudis provided funds for Brotherhood members who joined the anti-Nasser insurgency in Yemen
    in 1962.

    “Like any other truly effective covert action, this one was strictly off the books,” wrote Robert Baer, a nineteen-year veteran of the CIA, in Sleeping with the Devil. “There was no CIA funding, no memorandum of notification to Congress. Not a penny came out of the Treasury to fund it. In other words, no record.” Describing the Brotherhood as a “silent ally” that provided a “cheap no-American casualties way” to do “our dirty work in Yemen, Afghanistan, and plenty of other places,” he explained, “All the White House had to do was give a wink and a nod to countries harboring the Muslim Brothers.” (12)

    In 1962, with CIA encouragement, the Saudis established an organisation called the Muslim World League. Underwritten initially by several donors, including Aramco, then a CIA collaborator, the League established a powerful international presence, with representatives in 120 countries. It was headed by then chief Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed ibn Ibrahim al-Sheikh, a lineal descendant of Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahhab, and the presidency remains vested in the Saudi Mufti to this day.

    Included among its eight members were important representatives of the Salafi
    Muslim Brotherhood: Said Ramadan, son-in-law of Hasan al Banna (and whose own
    son Tariq Ramdan is now being groomed as a new reformist scholar for Muslims in
    the West), Maulana Abul Ala Maududi, leader of the Brotherhood offshoot Jamati
    Islami of Pakistan, and Maulana Abul Hasan Nadvi of India


    10 The Game of Nations, p. 184.

    11 Loftus, John, “The
    Muslim Brotherhood, Nazis and Al-Qaeda”. Jewish Community News,
    October 4, 2004.

    12 Lee, Martin A. “Not a prayer: then as now, American schemes
    to change Islam have been dangerous folly”. Harper’s Magazine, June




    by Joseph Zyble

    from WarriorsForTruth Website

    A former war crimes investigator explained how the terrorist network al Qaeda spawned from Nazi and Islamic extremist movements following WWII.

    John Loftus, who regularly appears on Fox News and ABC Radio addressed
    the theme of, “the roots of prejudice and hatred in the world.” He began by
    explaining that he didn’t set out to become a Nazi hunter. Early in his law career he took a volunteer attorney job created by the Carter administration to hunt Nazis “because I thought it would look good on my resume.”

    To his surprise, rather than traveling to Germany to investigate he was sent to the U.S. Government’s massive underground vaults protecting classified information. Loftus claims he was given complete access to the 20 acre-sized vaults, where he says he found some disturbing information.

    “I stumbled across some Nazi files I wasn’t supposed to see. No one was supposed to see them until the year 2015. The British Secret Service convinced American intelligence that the Nazis would be indispensable as “freedom fighters” in preparing for the next major war, which was anticipated against the Soviet Union.


    During his time in the government’s underground vaults, Loftus said he read a file on an organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood. In the file was information about a man named Hasam al-Banna who founded the organization in 1920.

    “Mr. al-Banna was a devout admirer of a young Austrian writer named Adolph Hitler. His letters to Hitler were so supportive that when Hitler came to power in the 1930s he had Nazi intelligence make contact with al-Banna to see if they could work together,” Loftus said.

    Hitler had al-banna establish a spy network for Nazi Germany throughout Arabia.

    Al-Banna promised Hitler that when Gen. Rommel’s Nazi tank division arrived in Cairo and Alexandria, the Muslim Brotherhood would ensure all of the British troops would be killed.

    “These men were Nazi agents, they were spies, who adopted the Third Reich’s policy towards the Jews,” Loftus said.

    He spoke about another prominent member of the Muslim Brotherhood, a man known as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who was the organization’s representative in Palestine. The Grand Mufti brought with him a hatred of the Jews. He was a principal
    organizer of the 1920 “Bloody Passover” massacre of Jews who were praying at Jerusalem’s Wailing Wall.

    Following a failed attempt to create a Nazi uprising in Iraq, the Grand Mufti fled to Europe to organize international Arab forces for the Third Reich disguised as SS

    “In truth these forces were Arab fanatics, Arab Nazis from all across the Middle East,” Loftus said.

    Though a certain war criminal, the Grand Mufti and his troops were spirited away from prosecution to Egypt by the British Secret Service.

    “Kim Philby, the Soviet agent who infiltrated the British Secret Service, was also recruiting Arab Nazis to poison the West’s efforts in the Middle East forever,” Loftus
    said. “By using Arab Nazis, democracy would be discredited, America would be discredited, Britain would be discredited.”

    Philby “helped” the United States acquire the Arab Nazis who were expelled from Egypt in the 1950s after the Egyptians recognized them as a threat

    According to Loftus, the Arab Nazis of the Muslim Brotherhood were sent to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

    “To keep them employed they were given jobs as religious education instructors,” Loftus said.

    While Islam is a very peaceful religion, Saudi Arabia practiced an extreme
    form of Islam called Wahhabi.

    “Saudi Wahhabism is to Islam as the KKK is to Christianity,” Loftus said. “It’s an extreme and perverted form of religion that was condemned as a heresy by Islam more than 60 times before the 1900s.”

    “Here is this corrupt cult and all of a sudden the school teachers are Nazis. Here a fusion is born between the two. Schools of hatred were built all over Saudi Arabia,” Loftus said.

    A well known pupil of these schools is Osama bin Laden, Loftus said. Bin Laden and other graduates of the schools were inducted into an underground neo-Nazi Wahhabi army for Saudi Arabia.

    Just as Russia was using Communist Arabs during the cold war, we would use Arab Nazis as a counterweight to oppose them,” Loftus said.

    “When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979 the Arab (neo) Nazis were let out of the closet.

    “Because of the combination of Wahhabi fanaticism and Nazi ideology, waves of people came pouring into Afghanistan to kill the Communists,” Loftus said.

    The Soviets were defeated and the United States left. And, according to Loftus, Osama bin Laden took control and his entire army of neo-Nazi theological cultists were left there alive in the field.

    Bin Laden drew up a list of those who he knew he could rely on and called this list ‘the base.’ Loftus said the Arabic translation of ‘the base’ is ‘al Qaeda.’

    “Al Qaeda is the direct lineal descendant of the Arab Nazis of the Muslim Brotherhood,” he said. “We let the Muslim Brotherhood, now known as Al Qaeda, to roam free upon the world. Many, human beings have paid for that mistake.


    In the summer of 2002, Loftus said, the British intercepted a message which revealed a nuclear weapons plot between N. Korea, Libya and Iraq. Iraqi nuclear scientists were working in Libya using enriched uranium supplied by North Korea, according to Loftus.

    “Saddam new he couldn’t have a nuclear program in his country because U.N. inspectors were all over,” Loftus said.

    When the United States confronted Libya with the evidence, Mommar Khadafi agreed to cooperate.

    According to Loftus, Khadafi said there is a Chinese component as well. Not the official government of China, but the radical right wing People’s Liberation Army. This group supplied Libya with detailed instructions on how to build an atomic warhead.

    Loftus said had the plot not been discovered, the project would have produced an atomic warhead within 18 months.

    According to Loftus, Iran is the only country remaining that is attempting to develop nuclear weapons. When the International Association of Atomic Energy meets again, Loftus expects the member nations, including the European nations who opposed war in Iraq, to vote to impose sanctions against Iran.

    “We think the blockade will go into effect very quickly. Iran is the last country that is actively financing terrorist groups. It is one of the few places where sanctions will work because 90 percent of its economy comes from oil exports,” Loftus said.

    In the al Qaeda plot to unleash a cloud of deadly chemicals in Amman, Jordan’s capital, that was foiled, Loftus said, the chemicals likely came from the hidden cache of WMDs created by Saddam.

    According to Loftus, evidence gathered by U.S. special forces, Israeli intelligence, statements by defectors, and satellite imagery point to three locations in Syria and one location in Lebanon where the WMDs are expected to be hidden.

    “U.S. intelligence believes they know where the WMDS are. The new Arab government of Iraq is going to ask for their property (the WMDs) back,” Loftus said. “If Syria and Lebanon don’t give the WMDs back, the new Iraqi government will ask us for help …and we will help.”

    In an interview with The U.P. Catholic, Loftus said, “The evidence looks pretty strong. Is it a 100 percent sure? No. But there is a high degree of probability” that the weapons are there.

    He said this information has not been reported in the American media because
    the government will not confirm any of the information. However, he said, the story has been circulating through the European press.

    “We are at the tipping point in the scale. I think we are going to win. In the next 12 months we may see a number of other nations surrender without firing a shot. If half of what my intelligence sources tell me is accurate, we are in for a very good year,” he said.

    In summary, Loftus said he has spent his career trying to help make a difference. He says the United States is now paying the price for negligence of leaders who looked the other way for inexpensive Arab oil over the years.

    Loftus’ appearance at St. Peter Cathedral was sponsored by the Marquette County Interfaith Forum.

    Loftus decided to forego a promising future with the U.S. Justice Department. Instead he blew the whistle.

    “I think I still hold the record for the longest segment ever on 60 Minutes. In 1982 it caused a minor national uproar,” Loftus said. “Mike Wallace got the Emmy, and my family got death threats.”

    • neshobanakni

      Maybe you’ve had a few too many “sound beatings” about the head.

      • Larry

        Yo Homer,

        It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

  • ugwu

    When you point a finger to a person, just look at how many remaining fingers that are pointing at you. There is God in heaven to pay back every evils.

  • 1StephenRohaty2

    Look at that little boy with the big knife. What attitude will he have when he grows up? As the twig is bent,…… Remember, this is the atmosphere in which obama was raised.

  • jewdog

    There’s a practical reason why most religions take a love-thy-neighbor approach. Look at Islam and see what happens when they don’t.

  • dia61

    As always, thank you for another smart, easily understood article which combines examples of how history repeats itself, insight into Muslim worldview, and the dogma of Islamic doctrine.
    In 2007, Pulitzer Prize winning author, Seymour Hersh, wrote a fairly long article called “The Redirection”. The article is long, but it’s honest, and it’s worth reading. ( I encourage everyone to read the article).
    The storyline of Syrian Civil War was and is fiction. This jihad, aka, ethnic cleansing, aka genocide was concocted, funded, and enforced by the USA, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, with the help of the Turks, ( and probably many unnamed others) to unify the Middle East in to a Sunni, Gulf run Caliphate. In other words, the Saudis were well aware of the human jihad gamble, but were sure that they could contain the violence. In other words, it was perfectly OK to rape, pillage, displace, kidnap, murder ALL Syrians, because the end was going to justify the means.
    In other words, the genesis of this horrific Syrian bloodbath, and it’s “Arab Spring” is about as honest as the storyline that the Benghazi murders were caused by a stupid movie, made by a Coptic Christian”, which “insulted” Muhammad.
    I’m going to try to make this brief and easy to understand. I’m an American born Syrian Christian, so I don’t rely on MSM propaganda for news and education. Here goes:
    Assad’s Party, the Ba’ath Party ( Ba’ath translates to “enlightenment” in Arabic) is a secular party, nationalistic party. In other words, in Ba’athist Syria, the people identified themselves and Syrians First and Foremost. For most, religious persuasion took a back seat to being Syrian. People lived in peace,….they weren’t constantly fighting their neighbors. For instance, Alawites ( Assad’s sect) celebrate Christmas. It isn’t hard to imagine, when you understand the differences, how the Syrians, in general, could be viewed as “not Muslim enough”. They didn’t buy in to Alinsky posturing.
    Most Western worldview minded folks haven’t a clue about any of this. How could they? It’s up to people like Raymond, and all of us who know the truth, to set the record straight. It’s time to turn the tables on them, but doing so means educating the masses and that’s not going to be an easy undertaking. May God help us all.

    • Larry

      Yo Bro

      You MUST see the finger of Mossad in all this!

      “Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

      The Infamous “Oded Yinon Plan”. Introduction by Michel Chossudovsky

      By Israel Shahak

      Global Research, December 24, 2013

      Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc. 3 March 2013

      Region: Middle East & North Africa

      Theme: Culture, Society & History, Politics and Religion


      Global Research Editor’s Note

      The following document pertaining to the formation of “Greater Israel” constitutes the cornerstone of powerful Zionist factions within the current Netanyahu government, the Likud party, as well as within the Israeli military and intelligence establishment.

      According to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, “the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.” According to Rabbi Fischmann, “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”

      When viewed in the current context, the war on Iraq, the 2006 war on
      Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing war on Syria, not to mention
      the process of regime change in Egypt, must be understood in relation
      to the Zionist Plan for the Middle East. The latter consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of an Israeli expansionist project.

      “Greater Israel” consists in an area extending from the Nile Valley to the Euphrates.

      The Zionist project supports the Jewish settlement movement. More
      broadly it involves a policy of excluding Palestinians from Palestine leading to the eventual annexation of both the West Bank and Gaza to the State of Israel.

      Greater Israel would create a number of proxy States. It would include parts of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Sinai, as well as parts of Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

      According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya in a 2011 Global Research article, The Yinon Plan was a continuation of Britain’s colonial design in the Middle East:

      “[The Yinon plan] is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional
      superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its
      geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding
      Arab states into smaller and weaker states.

      Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an
      Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the
      balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the
      basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called
      for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one
      for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step
      towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the
      Yinon Plan discusses.

      The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the
      Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.

      Greater Israel” requires the breaking up of the existing Arab states into small states.

      “The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation… This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic
      thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has
      been a recurrent theme.”

      Viewed in this context, the war on Syria is part of the process of Israeli territorial expansion. Israeli intelligence working hand in glove with the US, Turkey and NATO is directly supportive of the Al Qaeda terrorist mercenaries inside Syria.

      The Zionist Project also requires the destabilization of Egypt, the creation of factional divisions within Egypt as instrumented by the “Arab Spring” leading to the formation of a sectarian based State dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood.

      Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, March 3, 2013

    • LarrySingleton

      When you posted your comment were the paragraphs separated? Or were they together like they are now? When I post in Disqus it screws it up every time. I’ve learned I might have to use Wordpad. Let’s see:

      Don’t mind me; I’m just testing someting.
      Nope. Either way I have to separate the damn paragraphs. I HATE Disqus.

      Another man, who does have a deserving title in front of his name, is the Reverend Richard Wurmbrand. It’s men like him, and his experiences as a Missionary in Communist Russia, that teach me the differences and the realities of who the legitimate men of God are. A perfect example is the description of the word “martyr” on page eight of his book “Tortured for Christ”:

      “According to the original Greek, “martyr” means “witness”. The writer of Hebrews states that “we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses [martyrs]” (12:1), and Jesus instructs us in Acts 1:8, “You shall be witnesses [martyrs] to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” The New Testament martyr not only personally testified to the truth and power of Jesus Christ, but was instructed to take that witness to others, regardless of the cost. Later in the book of Acts, we read about the stoning of Stephen, making him the first to pay the ultimate price for that witness. It is at this time that the word martyr took on a much stronger meaning as one who not only is a witness but as one who is willing to give his life or to be martyred for that cause.” The writer of Hebrews states that “we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses [martyrs]” (12:1), and Jesus instructs us in Acts 1:8, “You shall be witnesses [martyrs] to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” The New Testament martyr not only personally testified to the truth and power of Jesus Christ, but was instructed to take that witness to others, regardless of the cost. Later in the book of Acts, we read about the stoning of Stephen, making him the first to pay the ultimate price for that witness. It is at this time that the word martyr took on a much stronger meaning as one who not only is a witness but as one who is willing to give his life or to be martyred for that cause.”

      In my copy of Tortured For Christ I’ve got the last four words double underlined; “martyred for that cause”.

      Sheikh bin Humaid uses the word “martyr” in his article on Jihad eleven times. I’m pretty sure that those martyrs aren’t meant to die without a sword in their hand. (Or dynamite and ball bearings wrapped around their waist) Which reminds me of the one aspect of the challenge I included when I asked Muslims to compare what would have to be the ultimate in their respective works:

      If Islam is the “religion of peace”, where in Sheikh Abdullah bin Humaid’s article on jihad can I find the equivalent of “Love Thy Neighbor” and “good will toward men”? And explain its prominence, and significance almost as an “Introduction”, in a book that’s described as “the most authentic and true among the books of the Prophet”: My Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari. Also address “jihad” as it’s defined in Reliance of the Traveller and answer the same question. (Chapter O-9.0: Jihad O: “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion.” And explain why the “greater” jihad is only mentioned once here and never seen again in this “Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law”.)

      Also compare Humaid’s “jihad” and Emmet Fox’ Sermon on the Mount and tell me which one best represents a spirit of Love and compassion.

  • Larry


    Translated and edited by

    Israel Shahak

    The Israel of Theodore Herzl (1904) and of Rabbi Fischmann (1947)

    In his Complete Diaries, Vol. II. p. 711, Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, says that the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”

    Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared in his testimony to the U.N. Special Committee of Enquiry on 9 July 1947:

    “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”


    Oded Yinon’s

    “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”

    Published by the

    Association of Arab-American
    University Graduates, Inc.

    Massachusetts, 1982

    Special Document No. 1 (ISBN

    Table of Contents

    Publisher’s Note1

    The Association of Arab-American University Graduates finds it compelling to inaugurate its new publication series, Special Documents, with Oded Yinon’s article which appeared in Kivunim (Directions), the journal of the Department of Information of the World Zionist Organization.
    Oded Yinon is an Israeli journalist and was formerly attached to the Foreign Ministry of Israel.
    To our knowledge, this document is the most explicit, detailed and unambiguous
    statement to date of the Zionist strategy in the Middle East. Furthermore, it stands as an accurate representation of the “vision” for the entire Middle East of the presently ruling Zionist regime of Begin, Sharon and Eitan. Its importance, hence, lies not in its historical value but in the nightmare which it presents.


    The plan operates on two essential premises.
    To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab
    states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s
    satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation.


    This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme. This theme has been documented on a very modest scale in the AAUG publication, Israel’s Sacred Terrorism (1980), by Livia Rokach. Based on the memoirs of Moshe Sharett, former Prime Minister of Israel, Rokach’s study documents, in
    convincing detail, the Zionist plan as it applies to Lebanon and as it was prepared in the mid-fifties.


    The first massive Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1978 bore this plan out to the minutest detail. The second and more barbaric and encompassing Israeli invasion of Lebanon on June 6, 1982, aims to effect certain parts of this plan which hopes to see
    not only Lebanon, but Syria and Jordan as well, in fragments. This ought to make mockery of Israeli public claims regarding their desire for a strong and independent Lebanese central government. More accurately, they want a Lebanese central government that sanctions their regional imperialist designs by signing a peace treaty with them. They also seek acquiescence in their designs by the Syrian, Iraqi, Jordanian and other Arab governments as well as by the Palestinian people. What they want and what they are planning for is not an Arab world, but a world of Arab fragments that is ready to succumb to Israeli hegemony. Hence, Oded Yinon in his essay, “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980′s,” talks about “far-reaching opportunities for the first time since 1967″ that are created by the “very stormy situation [that] surrounds Israel.”


    The Zionist policy of displacing the Palestinians from Palestine is very much an active policy, but is pursued more forcefully in times of conflict, such as in the 1947-1948 war and in the 1967 war. An appendix entitled ”Israel Talks of a New Exodus” is included in this publication to demonstrate past Zionist dispersals of Palestinians from their homeland and to show, besides the main Zionist document we present, other Zionist planning for the de-Palestinization of Palestine.


    It is clear from the Kivunim document, published in February, 1982, that the “far-reaching opportunities” of which Zionist strategists have been thinking are the same “opportunities” of which they are trying to convince the world and which they claim were generated by their June, 1982 invasion. It is also clear that the Palestinians were never the sole target of Zionist plans, but the priority target since their viable and independent presence as a people negates the essence of the Zionist state. Every Arab state, however, especially those with cohesive and clear nationalist directions, is a real target sooner or later.


    Contrasted with the detailed and unambiguous Zionist strategy elucidated in this document, Arab and Palestinian strategy, unfortunately, suffers from ambiguity and incoherence. There is no indication that Arab strategists have internalized the Zionist plan in its full ramifications. Instead, they react with incredulity and shock whenever a new stage of it unfolds. This is apparent in Arab reaction, albeit muted, to the
    Israeli siege of Beirut.
    The sad fact is that as long as the Zionist strategy for the Middle East is not taken seriously Arab reaction to any future siege of other Arab capitals will be the same.

    Khalil Nakhleh

    July 23, 1982


    by Israel Shahak


    The following essay represents, in my opinion, the accurate and detailed plan of the present Zionist regime (of Sharon and Eitan) for the Middle East which is based on the division of the whole area into small states, and the dissolution of all the existing
    Arab states. I will comment on the military aspect of this plan in a concluding note. Here I want to draw the attention of the readers to several important points:


    1. The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking. For example, Ze’ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha’aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the “best” that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: “The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi’ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part” (Ha’aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old.


    2. The strong connection with Neo-Conservative thought in the USA is very prominent, especially in the author’s notes. But, while lip service is paid to the idea of the “defense of the West” from Soviet power, the real aim of the author, and of the present Israeli establishment is clear: To make an Imperial Israel into a world power. In other words, the aim of Sharon is to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all the rest.


    3. It is obvious that much of the relevant data, both in the notes and in the text, is garbled or omitted, such as the financial help of the U.S. to Israel.
    Much of it is pure fantasy. But, the plan is not to be regarded as not influential, or as not capable of realization for a short time. The plan follows faithfully the geopolitical ideas current in Germany of 1890-1933, which were swallowed whole by Hitler and the Nazi movement, and determined their aims for East Europe. Those aims, especially the division of the existing states, were carried out in 1939-1941, and only an alliance on the global scale prevented their consolidation for a period of time.


    The notes by the author follow the text. To avoid confusion, I did not add any notes of my own, but have put the substance of them into this foreward and the conclusion at the end. I have, however, emphasized some portions of the text.

    Israel Shahak

    June 13, 1982


    A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties

    by Oded Yinon

  • walterc

    It may just be my ignorance of the middle east political situation, but to me it seems we (us infidel nations of the west) would benefit from this intermuslim struggle and should therefore foment the discord. Let them kill each other off and then we can deal with the survivors. Protect Israel as much as we can, and let the rest got to hell.

    • Larry


      Translated and edited by

      Israel Shahak

      The Israel of Theodore Herzl (1904) and of Rabbi Fischmann (1947)

      In his Complete Diaries, Vol. II. p. 711, Theodore Herzl, the founder
      of Zionism, says that the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the
      Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”

      Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared
      in his testimony to the U.N. Special Committee of Enquiry on 9 July

      “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”



      1. IDOLATERS

      Since Christians follow the teachings of that man, whom the Jews regard as a
      Seducer and an Idolater, and since they worship him as God, it clearly follows
      that they merit the name of idolater, in no way different from those among whom the Jews lived before the birth of Christ, and whom they taught should be exterminated by every possible means.

      This is best demonstrated by the names they give Christians, and by the
      unmistakable words of Maimonides which prove that all who bear the name of
      Christian are idolaters. And anyone who examines Jewish books which speak of the “Worshippers of the Stars and Planets,” “Epicureans,” “Samaritans,” etc., cannot but conclude that these idolaters are none other than Christians. The Turks are always called “Ismaelites,” never idolaters.


      Maimonides in Hilkoth Maakhaloth (ch. IX) says:

      “It is not permitted to drink the wine of a stranger who becomes a convert, that is, one who accepts the seven precepts of Noah, but is permitted to gain some benefit from it. It is allowed to leave wine alone with him, but not to place it before him. The same is permitted in the case of all gentiles who are not idolaters, such as the Turks [Ismaelites]. A Jew, however, is not permitted to drink their wine, although he may use it to his own advantage.”

      3. MURDERERS

      In Abhodah Zarah (22a) it says:

      “A Jew must not associate himself with gentiles because they are given to the shedding of blood.”

      Likewise in Iore Dea (153, 2):

      “An Israelite must not associate himself with the Akum [Christians] because they are given to the shedding of blood.”

      In the Abhodah Zarah (25b) it says:

      “The Rabbis taught: If a Goi joins an Israelite on the road, he [the Jew]
      should walk on his right side. Rabbi Ismael, the son of Rabbi Jochanan the
      nephew of Beruka, says: if he carries a sword, let the Jew walk on his right
      side. If the Goi carries a stick, the Jew should walk on his left side. If he is
      climbing a hill or descending a steep incline, the Jew must not go in front
      with the Goi behind, but the Jew must go behind and the Goi in front, nor must he stoop down in front of him for fear the Goi might crack his skull. And if he should ask the Jew how far he is going, he should pretend he is going a long way, as Jacob our Father said to the impious Esau: until I come to my Lord in Seir (Gen. XXXIII, 14-17), but it adds: Jacob set out for Sukoth.”

      In Orach Chaiim (20, 2) it says:

      “Do not sell your overcoat (Talith) with the fringes to an Akum, lest he should join up with a Jew on the road and kill him. It is also forbidden to exchange or lend your overcoat with a Gentile, except for a short time and when there is nothing to be feared from him.”


      In the Abhodah Zarah (15b) it says:

      “Animals of the masculine sex must not be left in the barns of the Gentiles with their men, nor animals of the feminine sex with their women; much
      less must animals of the feminine sex be left with their men and of the
      masculine sex with their women. Nor must sheep be left to the care of their shepherds; nor must any intercourse be had with them; nor must children be given into their care to learn to read or to learn a trade.”

      In the same tract a little farther on (22a) it is explained why animals must
      not be allowed in the barns of Gentiles, and why Jews are not permitted to have sexual intercourse with them:

      “Animals must not be allowed to go near the Goim, because they are suspected of having intercourse with them. Nor must women cohabit with them because they are over-sexed.”

      In fol. 22b of the same book the reason is given why animals especially of the
      feminine sex must be kept away from their women: “…because when Gentile
      men come to their neighbors’ houses to commit adultery with their wives and do not find them at home, they fornicate with the sheep in the barns instead. And sometimes even when their neighbors’ wives are at home, they prefer to
      fornicate with the animals; for they love the sheep of the Israelites more than
      their own women.”

      It is for the same reason that animals are not to be entrusted to Goi
      shepherds, nor children to their educators.

      5. UNCLEAN

      The Talmud gives two reasons why the Goim are unclean: because they eat
      unclean things, and because they themselves have not been cleansed (from
      original sin) on Mount Sinai. In Schabbath, (145b) it says:

      “Why are the Goim unclean? Because they eat abominable things and animals that crawl on their belly.”

      Likewise in Abhodah Zarah, 22b:

      “Why are the Goim unclean? Because they were not present at Mount Sinai. For when the serpent entered into Eve he infused her with uncleanness. But the Jews were cleansed from this when they stood on Mount Sinai; the Goim, however, who were not on Mount Sinaim were not cleansed.”


      “When ten persons are praying together in one place and they say Kaddisch, or Kedoschah, anyone, even though he does not belong there, may respond Amen. There are some, however, who say that no dung or Akum must be present.”

      In Iore Dea (198, 48) Hagah, it says:

      “When Jewish women come out of a bath they must take care to meet a friend
      first, and not something unclean or a Chrsitian. For if so, a woman, if she wants to keep holy, should go back and bathe again.”

      It is worthy of note that the following list of unclean things is a given in Biur Hetib, a commentary on the Schulchan Arukh:

      “A woman must wash herself again if she sees any unclean things, such as a
      dog, an ass, or People of the Earth; a Christian (Akum), a camel, a pig, a horse, and a leper.


      In Kerithuth (6b p. 78) it says:

      “The teaching of the Rabbis is: He who pours oil over a Goi, and over dead bodies is freed from punishment. This is true for an animal because it is not a man. But how can it be said that by pouring oil over a Goi one is freed from punishment, since a Goi is also a man? But this is not true, for it is written: Ye are my flock, the flock of my pasture are men (Ezechiel, XXXIV, 31). You are thus called men, but the Goim are not called men.”

      In the Tract Makkoth (7b) he is said to be guilty of killing “except when, if
      intending to kill an animal he kills a man by mistake, or intending to kill a Goi, he kills an Israelite.”

      In Orach Chaiim (225, 10) it says:

      “He who sees beautiful creatures, even though it be an Akum or an animal,
      let him say ‘Blessed art thou Our Lord God, King of the Universe, who has
      placed such things on the earth!’”


      In Midrasch Talpioth (fol. 225d) it says:

      “God created them in the form of men for the glory of Israel. But Akum were created for the sole end of ministering unto them [the Jews] day and night. Nor can they ever be relieved from this service. It is becoming to the son of a king [an Israelite] that animals in their natural form, and animals in the form of human beings should minister unto him.”

      We can quote here also what is said in Orach Chaiim, 57, 6a:

      “If pigs are to be pitied when they suffer from disease, because their
      intestines are similar to ours, how much more should the Akum be pitied when thus affected.”

      9. ANIMALS

      In Zohar, II, (64b) it says:

      “…People who worship idols, and who are called cow and ass, as it is written: I have a cow and an ass…”

      Rabbi Bechai, in his book Kad Hakkemach, ch. I, beginning with the word Geulah – redemption – referring to Psalm 80, v.13:

      The boar out of the wood doth waste it, says:

      “The letter ain is dropped [suspended] the same as these worshippers are followers of him who was suspended.”

      Buxtorf (Lex.) says:

      “By wild pig the author here means the Christians who eat pork and, like pigs,
      have destroyed the vineyard of Israel, the City of Jerusalem, and who believe in the ‘suspended’ Christ. Else the letter ain is dropped in this word because they, as worshippers of Christ who was hanged, are also dropped.”

      Rabbi Edels, in commenting on Kethuboth (110b) says:

      “The Psalmist compares the Akum to the unclean beast in the woods.”


      Rabbi Schelomo Iarchi (Raschi), famous Jewish commentator, explaining the law of Moses (Deuter. XIV, 21) forbidding the eating of meat of wounded animals, but which must be given to the ‘stranger in thy gates,’ or which, according to Exodus (XXII, 30) is to be thrown to the dogs, has this to say:

      “…for he is like a dog. Are we to take to word ‘dog’ here literally? By no means. For the text in speaking of dead bodies says, Or thou mayest sell it to an alien. This applies much more to the meat of wounded animals, for which it is permitted to accept payment. Why therefore does the Scripture say it may be thrown to ‘dogs?’ In order to teach you that a dog is to be more
      respected than the Nokhri.”


      In the Sanhedrin (74b) Tosephoth, it says:

      “The sexual intercourse of a Goi is like that of a beast.”

      And in Kethuboth (3b) it says:

      “The seed of a Goi is worth the same as that of a beast.”

      Hence it is to be inferred that Christian marriage is not true marriage.

      In Kidduschim (68a), it says:

      “…How do we know this? Rabbi Huna says: You can read: Remain here with
      the ass, that is, with a people like an ass. Hence it appears that they are not
      capable of contracting marriage.”

      And in Eben Haezer (44, 8):

      “If a Jew enters into marriage with an Akum (Christian), or with his servant, the marriage is null. For they are not capable of entering into matrimony. Likewise if an Akum or a servant enter into matrimony with a Jew, the marriage is null.”

      In Zohar (II, 64b) it says:

      “Rabbi Abba says: If only idolaters alone had sexual intercourse, the
      world would not continue to exist. Hence we are taught that a Jew should not
      give way to those infamous robbers. For if these propagate in greater numbers, it will be impossible for us to continue to exist because of them. For they give birth to sucklings the same as dogs.”


      In Zohar (I, 28b) we read:

      “Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field, etc. (Genes. III, 1.) ‘More subtle’ that is towards evil; ‘than all beasts’ that is, the idolatrous people of the earth. For they are the children of the ancient serpent which seduced Eve.”

      The best argument used by the Jews to prove that Christians are of the race of the devil is the fact that they are uncircumcized. The foreskin on non-Jews
      prevents them from being called the children of the Most High God. For by
      circumcision the name of God -Schaddai – is complete in the flesh of a circumcized Jew. The form of the letter Isch is in his nostrils, the letter Daleth in his (bent) arm, and ain appears in his sexual organ by circumcision. In non-circumcized gentiles, therefore, such as Christians, there are only two letters,Isch and Daleth, which make the word Sched, which means devil. They are, therefore, children of the Sched, the devil.


      The teaching of the Jews is that God created two natures, one good and the
      other evil, or one nature with two sides, one clean and the other unclean. From the unclean side, called Keliphah – rind, or scabby crust – the souls of Christians are said to have come.

      In Zohar (I, 131a) it says:

      “idolatrous people, however, since they exist, befoul the world, because
      their souls come out of the unclean side.”

      And in Emek Hammelech (23d) it says:

      “The souls of the impious come from Keliphah, which is death and the shadows of death.”

      Zohar (I, 46b, 47a) goes to show that this unclean side is the left side, from which the souls of the Christians come:

      “And he created every living thing, that is, the Israelites, because they are the children of the Most High God, and their holy souls come out from Him. But where do the souls of the idolatrous gentiles come from? Rabbi Eliezer says: from the left side, which makes their souls unclean. They are therefore all unclean and they pollute all who come in contact with them.”


      The Elders teach that Abraham sits at the gate of Gehenna and prevents any
      circumcized person from entering there; but that all the uncircumcized go down to hell.

      In Rosch Haschanach (17a) it says:

      “Heretics and Epicureans and Traitors go down into hell.”


      The bodies of Christians after death are called by the odious name of Pegarim, which is the word used in Holy Scripture for the dead bodies of
      the damned and of animals, but never for the pious dead who are called Metim. Thus the Schulchan Arukh orders that a dead Christian must be spoken of in the same way as a dead animal.

      In Iore Dea (377, 1) it says:

      “Condolences must not be offered to anyone on account of the death of his
      servants or handmaids. All that may be said is ‘May God restore your lost one, the same as we say to a man who has lost a cow or an ass.’”

      Nor must Christians be avoided for seven days after they have buried
      someone, as the law of Moses commands, since they are not men; for the burial of an animal does not pollute one.

      In Iebhammoth (61a) it says:

      “The Nokhrim are not rendered unclean by a burial. For it is said: Ye are my sheep, the sheep of my pasture; ye are men. You are thus called men, but not the Nokhrim.”

  • mowens

    . What I see at work here is hysteria. The old ways no longer work, the old promises are forfeit. And the people are scared to death and very angry. They feel cheated by their system, but are internally prevented from blaming that system for their troubles. It’s hard to imagine a more dangerous combination.

    The fundamental assumption of Islamic civilization was that it was perfect. It had all the answers. Since the Ottoman armies were turned back from Vienna for the last time, and definitely since the Battle of the Pyramids, this civilization has been brought up hard against the realization that their assumptions were not so. There were still many things to learn. growth must take place. If reason didn’t show this, painful defeats and declines did.

    But acknowledging this was the next thing to heresy, if not outright apostasy.Reform was tantamount to an admission of fault- unthinkable. Therefore, like many another civilization under siege by modernity, the reaction was mass hysteria and a violent lashing out- against the enemy, and against each other. We’ve seen it before: turn back the clock, or at least stop it. and by all means, find a scapegoat.

    Think of the wave of witch burnings and inquisitions that counterbalanced the Renaissance in Europe. The pogroms against the Jews as czarist Russia encountered the Industrial Revolution head on. The Red scare, Prohibition, and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan as all the immigrants that America had invited over actually settled down to live here.To say nothing of Uncle Adolf’s Lonely Hearts Club Band.

    At bottom, the hatred of whatever enemy is conjured at the moment is merely a reflection of doubt and self-loathing. If by some cosmic event, Israel and all the Jews in the world vanished in a puff of smoke tomorrow morning, the various Islamic radical splinter groups would be at each other’s throats by sunset of the same day.

    They are in love with the drama, in love with the blood, in love with the pain. I see no other cure than extinction.

  • AzzaSedky

    Well done! You hit the nail on the head.

    As for Al Jazeera, please see how much inciting its journalists can do. “Brotherhood’s Consequential Damage”

  • charlie griffith

    This, pasted here, caught my eye…..

    “A saying attributed to the Muslim prophet Muhammad even validates this: “This umma [nation] of mine will split into seventy-three sects; one will be in paradise and seventy-two will be in hell.” When asked which sect was the true one, the prophet replied, “al-jama‘a,” that is, the group which most literally follows the example or “sunna” of Muhammad, a thing not so simple to do.”

    Now, why, oh, why do we Americans think that we can choose and judge sides among these 73 sects?…inside of these geographical “entities” each with borders hand drawn straddling these sects. That’s the problem now in Syria, among the others.

    Now, take Kerry and that Hillary woman…what makes them qualified to opine on things muslim as to which sect we support against another muslim sect?……talk about double-edged swords…..Kerry and Hillary only complicate matters with their posturing. Unavoidable is the thought-extension of their ilk falling on their own swords or being “hoist on their own petard”.

  • bj affordable

    You can’t tell the cops from the robbers.