…by Jonas E. Alexis
From 2003 to 2012, over two thousand doctors and nurses, and over four hundred academics, have been assassinated in Iraq. Others have emigrated due to violence in the region. In 1990, there were about thirty thousand registered doctors in Iraq. By 2008, more than fifteen thousand had already left the country.
Then there is the high unemployment that has been ravaging sections of the region, combining with the fact that educational institutions have been in decline.
John Tirman of The Nation reported in 2009 that about 1 million people have been killed in Iraq, 4.5 million have been displaced. The war produced one to two million widows, and about five million orphans. Those figures are probably higher.
Israel is continuing this form of ethnic cleansing by destroying Palestinian “unrecognized” villages and replacing them with Israeli buildings.
If Israel is a “villa in the jungle,” as Ehud Barak put it, then it seems to follow that the Palestinians are just “dogs” and “roaches in a bottle,” as Chief of Staff of the IDF Moshe Dayan (1915-1981) and Rafael Eitan (1929-2004) believed, respectively.
This is the freedom that the neoconservatives have brought to Iraq; this is the sort of heaven these intellectual and political geniuses are seeking in the Middle East, and all of that has been done for Israel. Right before America invaded Iraq, Benjamin Netanyahu declared,
“I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike against Saddam’s regime [which was] feverishly trying to acquire nuclear weapons.”
What is even heartbroken is that the ideological agenda of the neoconservative movement progressively attacks Christian families and neighborhoods in the Middle East.
Doug Bandow of the National Interest had the guts in 2010 to declare that “the historic Christian community has been largely destroyed” in Iraq after the war, where hundreds of Christians have been killed and exiled to other countries such as Syria and Lebanon.
We are witnessing the same thing in Syria, where the Christian minority has been targeted by the Syrian rebels/terrorists. And by October 2012, it was clear that by supporting the Syrian terrorists, the U.S. ended up supporting “hardline Islamic Jihadis,” says David Sanger of the New York Times. Just recently, it has been reported that more than two million civilians fled the country.
The rebels themselves have been known to support “senseless destruction, criminal behavior and the cold-blooded killing of prisoners.” By the end of November 2012, the Syrian war had caused at least 40,000 people to leave their homeland, and
“1.2 million have been driven from their homes within the country, according to the United Nations refugee agency. Some 2.5 million people need humanitarian assistance, and the number keeps climbing.”
That particular month turned out to be a bad omen for the Syrians as well, as they faced “the onslaught of winter with inadequate shelter,” with many possessing “little more than a T-shirt and flip-flops.” With the temperature reaching zero degrees at night, 27-year old Mohamed Khair al-Oraiby lamented, “We already wake up early because it is so cold.”
Bandow continues to say that “many advocates claim Iraq is now a great success. But not for Iraq’s Christians.” People like Benjamin Weinthal are now talking about “The Mideast’s Vanishing Christians.”
In October 2012, a bomb blasted a Beirut Christian community, and the New York Times was quick to jump to the conclusion that Assad was behind it, forgetting that Assad has been friends with the Christian communities and that they too saw that if Assad is overthrown, the Christian communities will have problems with the new regime.
According to the reasoning by the New York Times, Assad was just dumb, killing his own allies for no reason. But only a week before the bombing, the Syrian rebels threatened to attack Beirut. None of that was put into consideration by the New York Times.
Who is behind this?
Bandow did not tell us who those advocates were, nor did Weinthal describe the forces behind the vanishing Christians in the Middle East. Weinthal ended up putting the blame only on Hamas, at least in the Gaza Strip, and then on Egypt’s former president Mohamed Morsi.
In other words, the neoconservatives destroyed the Christian community in many parts of the Middle East and then blamed it on the Muslims!
Raymond Ibrahim, in his book Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians, never even remotely suggests that the neoconservative ideology is part of the problem.
This is called divide and conquer. For example, Obama in particular has never ceased to follow the neoconservative dream in the Middle East. He is currently seeking Congressional approval to strike Syria.
But how do the neoconservatives respond? Peter Wehner of Commentary currently declares that Obama is “doing nothing to achieve that end”! Max Boot of the same magazine comes up with similar conclusions.
John Podhoretz, son of Norman Podhoretz and editor of Commentary, argues that Obama made it clear that he does not need Congressional approval to strike Syria, and Obama needs to be true to his words.
William Kristol approvingly published an article by neoconservative James Ceaser arguing that the law ought to be changed. The law ought to give the president enough power to go to war without Congressional approval. This will give the neoconservatives complete control over our foreign policy.
But suppose Obama continues to push Congress to attack Syria and America actually invades Syria. How do you think the neoconservatives will respond?
Consider the title of this book by David Limbaugh: The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama’s War on the Republic.
In other words, the neo-Bolsheviks/neoconservatives will never take responsibility for the chaos they have created in the Middle East and elsewhere. Obama even got Zionist puppets John McCain and Lindsey Graham onboard, but not a single neoconservative like Limbaugh will even suggest that they are partly responsible for the problem.
Daniel Greenfield of FrontPage Magazine is upset because Obama is pushing Congress to go to war with Syria. But Greenfield has not written a single piece about the neoconservatives who are pushing for the war.
(We see the same thing in America, when evidence indicated that the Protestant movement in the United States was in steep decline. One writer attributed this to secularism, without even mentioning the major forces behind secularism. The man who has been called “the father of secularism” is none other than the late Paul Kurtz.)
Historian Aaron B. O’Connell of the United States Navy for example talks about “the permanent militarization of America,” but dares not say that the people behind this are none other than the neoconservatives.
The neoconservative movement, as we have demonstrated in other articles, is a Jewish intellectual and political movement which precipitated the war in Iraq and created political entropy in the country.
Iraq was not a threat to America by any stretch of the imagination, but the neoconservatives unleashed a plethora of hoaxes and pathetic fabrications which eventually convinced the American people that Iraq was an imminent threat. Bush was partly a puppet in the process.
“Prince of Darkness” Richard Perle for example bragged about how Bush knew very little about foreign policy and that he and other neoconservatives had to coach him.
Now it is Iran that is an existential threat, despite the fact that for almost three thousand years, Jewish artifacts of all kinds have played a vital role in Iran among the Jewish community, where they largely enjoyed the ambiance, and despite the fact that noted political scientists such as Kenneth Waltz have made it clear that a nuclear Iran is not a threat to the Middle East or America.
According to Waltz,
“Israel’s regional nuclear monopoly, which has proved remarkably durable for the past four decades, has long fueled instability in the Middle East. In no other region of the world does a lone, unchecked nuclear state exist. It is Israel’s nuclear arsenal, not Iran’s desire for one, that has contributed most to the current crisis. Power, after all, begs to be balanced.”
Other scholars like Paul R. Pillar made similar arguments.
Israel never ceased to wipe out the Palestinians. The 1982 massacre is a classic example, where Israeli military allowed Lebanese militia to attack Palestinian refugees; they “raped, killed and dismembered at least 800 civilians, while Israeli flares illuminated the camps’ narrow and darkened alleyways.”
One year later, an Israeli investigation commission found Israel “indirectly responsible” for the massacre, and Ariel Sharon an accomplice. How did the Israeli officials get the U.S. involved?
According to declassified documents found in the Israel State Archives, they convinced U.S. officials that Beirut had terrorist cells, and in the end allowed the slaughter of Palestinian civilians whom the U.S. had previously vowed to protect. Ariel Sharon said that Beirut had from 2,000 to 3,000 terrorists.
The American envoy in the Middle East, Morris Draper, basically said that Sharon was lying. Lawrence S. Eagleburger, then Secretary of State, declared:
“We appear to some to be the victim of deliberate deception by Israel.”
During his conversation with Sharon, Draper knew that the United States was not standing behind Sharon’s evil pursuit, but Sharon ended an agreement on his own terms. It was reported that Draper told Sharon,
“You should be ashamed. The situation is absolutely appalling. They’re killing children! You have the field completely under your control and are therefore Zionist, was outraged.”
Secretary of State George P. Shultz declared that the United States was also an accomplice in allowing Israel to manipulate them in order to massacre civilians. But no sanctions were pronounced on Israel. Nothing was done. Why?
Nicholas A. Veliotes, then the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, gave us an indirect answer:
“Vintage Sharon. It is his way or the highway.”
Scholar Seth Anziska declares, “The Sabra and Shatila massacre severely undercut America’s influence in the Middle East, and its moral authority plummeted.”
The Neoconservatives vs. America
The dominance of the neoconservative agenda had a trajectory effect in America, which induced the war in Iraq and left us in debt. Some economists thought that the war in Iraq would only cost three trillion dollars. But it has been reported that the war itself will more than likely cost us at least six trillion dollars in the long run.
The wars in Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, and other parts in the Middle East have cost billions of dollars. By 2010, the war in Afghanistan had already surpassed the $12 billion mark.
By January 2011, it was reported that the U.S. had wasted $12 billion in Afghanistan. In the same month, the budget deficit was reaching the $1.48 trillion mark, while the U.S. debt was nearly $14.3 trillion.
It has reported recently that a war with Syria will cost America greatly: just one cruise missile alone costs about $1.1 million, and there are five U.S. Navy destroyers carrying those cruise missiles.
“The destroyers generally carry dozens of them… The ships, missiles and salaries are already paid for. There may be an incremental cost in the tens of millions for operating the ships outside their routine operating schedule.”
By the summer of 2012, the U.S. debt has already reached the $16 trillion mark. In other words, trillions of dollars have been spent for wars when they could have helped reboot the economy. The indirect consequence? We produce Guantanamo whereas in the past torture was completely foreign to America.
Perhaps one of the rare areas neoconservative policies have affected America is in the decline of the European population. People are having fewer children, since the economy does not allow the average family to put food on the table.
This means that the worldwide population—most particularly in Europe—is in decline. And that has spread to America. As it turned out, by the spring of 2012, “White births are no longer a majority in the United States.”
The article hints that one of the causes is the economy. In this fragile economy, almost no one is exempt, including 62-year-old folks who thought that they were safe with their mortgage, only to find that they had been ripped off.
Marriage is a central component in any society, and the ancient Greco-Roman world suffered in this area because to some extent they held marriage “in low esteem.” It was such a problem that in 131 B.C., the Roman censor Quintus Caecilius wanted to make marriage compulsory.
America is facing a similar situation. With student loans burying the average student in debt, where some owe as much as $85,000, it certainly will take a while for those students to get out of the sinkhole.
By September 2012, it was reported that one in five U.S. households suffered from student loan debt. What is more disheartening is that some borrowers have tricked students so that those students have no way to get out of debt.
One student, Jenny Hecht, is a graduate from the University of Michigan with a master’s degree in social work. She has a job that pays less than $40,000 a year with a student loan of $75,000. Although she seems to be happy with her livelihood, she complains,
“I don’t want to sound like a victim, because I chose this career. We live a modest lifestyle. We’re able to pay our bills and stay afloat, except that this student loan debt is hanging over our heads always.”
Ann Marie Gorden is another student with a debt of $130,000. In her first job, Gorden only made $28,000 a year with a loan payment of $700 on her back which only covered the interest. Thankfully, she found a new job where she made $45,000 a year. Still, that is not enough to cover the debt, which will economically cripple her for years to come—if not her lifetime.
Aaron Marks, who graduated in 2012 from Carnegie Mellon University with a business degree, owes $191,000 in student loans. Marks knew what was happening, but nevertheless lamented,
“You don’t really think about what it actually means to have a house worth of debt, on a higher interest rate than a mortgage, until you’re getting close to graduating and thinking about having to repay them.”
At the same time, United States was planning to send millions of dollars to Libya to allegedly combat Islamic extremists.
Counter-terrorism vs. America
Then we have the so-called counterterrorism movement unleashed by the neoconservative circle. Counterterrorism has become, in the words of Paul R. Pillar, “an increasingly institutionalized killing machine that appears destined to operate indefinitely against a continually replenished list of targets.”
Pillar continues to argue that the counterterrorism advocates failed to learn that
“terrorism is not something with a beginning and an end. It is instead a tactic that has persisted throughout history. And yet the notion of a beginning and an end persists in thinking in this country about terrorism.
“The counterterrorism machine has gotten cranked up to run in ways that would not be acceptable to most Americans if it were to run forever, and yet there is no evident point at which, once turned on, it should be turned off.”
Pillar could not be any more right. Even by October 2012, most Americans do not want the U.S. to intervene in the Middle East.
It is this so-called counterterrorism that drove president after president to wage detrimental wars in the Middle East, and even Obama, who was viewed as an intermission from perpetual wars, is responsible for the killings of hundreds of civilians, including women and children, in places like Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.
In Pakistan alone, it has been reported that some 400 civilians were killed by drones since 2004. Obama continued the same perpetual war in the Middle East. But that never stops him from accusing Assad of killing civilians.
Secretary of State John Kerry does the same thing, saying that laboratory tests proved that the Assad government has used chemical weapons. Anders Rasmussen, NATO’s secretary-general, declared that he has seen concrete evidence showing that the Syrian government was responsible for the act.
There was just one problem: Kerry and Rasmussen failed to tell the press where to get those laboratory tests.
You make an extraordinary claim, which has the potential to create chaos in the Middle East if followed through, then you pull back and say that the evidence for the assertion is classified!
Assad had to be really stupid to use chemical weapons when he knew very well that the Zionist regime would use that excuse to invade Syria in a heartbeat. But judging from numerous interviews, Assad does not seem to be an irrational person.
Assad proved to be an enemy of the Zionist regime when he stated in 2006 that the Jews “tried to kill the principles of all religion with the same mentality in which they betrayed Jesus Christ and the same way they tried to and kill the Prophet Muhammad.”
Assad said he opposed anti-Semitism and has even made it clear that the Syrian people are also part of the Semitic peoples. Assad even supported the initiative of rebuilding synagogues in Damascus back in 2011.
But those initiatives will never satisfy the Zionist regime because it wants to have total domination. Therefore it was inevitable that Assad would find himself in the Middle of what seems to be an unresolved conflict. It was also inevitable that the Zionist machine would summon some of the ridiculous statements about Assad, including his alleged use of chemical weapons.
In response, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov declared,
“If there truly is top secret information available, the veil should be lifted. This is a question of war and peace. To continue this game of secrecy is simply inappropriate.”
As a faithful Zionist and “born-again neocon,” Obama has desperately tried to persuade Congress and even marshaled a campaign without any evidence to invade Syria. The Zionist regime continues to propound the lie that Syria has used chemical weapons, but international chemical weapons experts are widely skeptical about the claim. Richard Guthrie, former leader of the Chemical Biological Warfare Project of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, declared,
“There are lots of things that aren’t spelled out. That’s the difficulty. There’s still problem of, Trust us, we have more intelligence.’”
Here is something very important to consider. The Obama administration also kept saying that they are intervening in Syria largely for humanitarian reasons and for saving previous lives.
Just recently, Khalid Shakfeh, an eighteen-year old University of South Florida microbiology student, went to Syria with his family and the Syrian American Council on Spring Break and brought humanitarian supplies with them. As soon as he came back to America to continue his studies, he was approached by the MacDill-based U.S. Special Operations Command, a military operation, about his activity!
Counter-terrorism is a Zionist invention
Yet by September 2012, the United States removed the terrorist label from MEK, although it remained a violent terrorist organization, whose members were trained by the Mossad to kill Iranian scientists. In other words, MEK is not a terrorist organization because the neoconservatives dictate to us what is and is not a terrorist organization.
In a nutshell, the average American and our precious soldiers are simply exhausted. They simply do not want to hear about another war in the Middle East for Israel. Brilliant politician Justin Amash declared,
“I’ve been hearing a lot from members of our Armed Forces. The message I constantly hear: Please vote no on military action against Syria.’” Here is the assessment of an active-duty soldier, “rank of Sergeant First Class”:
“We are stretched thin, tired, and broke…. We are too tired to put boots on the ground… My gut is telling me that we don’t need to be World Police. And if we don’t have the UN for back up, it’s just too much for us to take on.
“We still haven’t finished Afghanistan; I just don’t see how we can take on another war, or even military actions that don’t affect us. I can’t stand to sit by and watch innocent lives be taken in such a horrible manner, but we can’t really do this alone…”
James Madison and Richard Nixon vs. the Neo-Bolsheviks
In the 1790s, James Madison, speaking in a cogently prophetic voice, wrote:
“Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debt and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended.”
Madison was more right than he ever imagined. The best way to bring “the many under the dominion of the few” is to create perpetual wars, and perpetual wars will inevitably give the few powers over us all.
Who is largely responsible for this mess? Perhaps it is time to bring in Richard Nixon. He said that the Jews in America largely “put the Jewish interest above America’s interest, and it’s about goddamn time that the Jew in America realizes he’s an American first and a Jew second.”
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported, “Nixon accused the Jews of holding American foreign policy ‘hostage to Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union,’ and added that ‘the American people are not going to let them destroy our foreign policy — never!’”
If Nixon is to be correct, the American people must rise to the challenge. The vast majority of Americans did a great job in resisting a war with Syria. Only nine percent of the population actually supported a strike against Syria. This once again shows that the Zionist regime can be challenged and defeated. It is not too late.
In order to defeat the Zionist regime, there ought to be a thorough investigation on those double agents who pretend to protect America but are traitors and spies for the terrorist state known as Israel. John Kerry in particular is a classic example of a double agent.
When Congress was giving him a hard time about the issues in Syria, Kerry called his boss, Benjamin Netanyahu, “with a reassuring message: the Obama administration is determined to take action against Bashar Assad’s regime in response to the August 21 chemical weapons attack.”
Obama did almost the same thing with respect to Iran. Later, Obama let the world, including his boss, know that Congress will give the go-ahead on Syria. The terrorist state responded by testing its missile in the Mediterranean.
Kerry doesn’t apologize to the American people who try to pay their taxes and support the terrorist state; Kerry called “King Bibi.” Behind closed doors, the Israeli officials talked about how the U.S. must act quickly in Syria.
In a desperate attempt to convince the American people that Assad needs to go, Kerry says:
“Bashar al-Assad now joins the list of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein who have used these weapons in time of war.”
Wait a minute. I thought the Holocaust establishment says that the Holocaust is unique and cannot be compared to any other crime in history?
Dethrone the Neo-Bolsheviks from their Political Power
If the Zionists/neo-Bolsheviks/neoconservatives are giving their allegiance to terrorism such as the Syrian rebels, they ought to be dethroned from their political power. If they are going to destroy our foreign policy, why should we give them a political platform to do so?
More recently, the Washington Post declares that soldiers with post-traumatic stress are still being redeployed in Afghanistan. Many of those soldiers lost their marriages because of the perpetual wars, and many are physically and emotionally crippled. As the report puts it:
“A diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder is not a barrier to being redeployed…. there is the young sergeant whose previous tour in Afghanistan — a relentless blur of firefights and rocket attacks — has left him unable to sleep.
“There is the officer who returned home from Iraq and screamed in nightmares for his men to take cover, until his wife woke him up, bewildered.
“There is the battalion commander, Lt. Col. Daniel Morgan, who watched as his marriage nearly disintegrated over the course of several deployments and who found himself sitting at a beach house in North Carolina a few years ago, stung by his inability to communicate.
“The men are not at home recovering. They are back in one of the most dangerous stretches of Afghanistan.”
In other words, nothing is too great a risk for the terrorist state known as Israel. Politico has recently admitted that the war with Syria would be good for Israel.
Let us all continue to challenge the terrorist state. As Solzhenitsyn put it, “One word of truth outweighs the world.”
about Terrorism,” National Interest, October 25, 2012.