Translate

Feb 21, 2011

New York Times lectures Pakistan on nukes - omits Israeli nukes

 

New York Times lectures Pakistan on nukes - omits Israeli nukes

by Michael Hoffman | Feb. 21, 2011

This column is online with additional research links: 
http://tinyurl.com/6lbz7od

Here is more of the same — the insufferable Talmudic double-standard 
which the NY Times, in its Zionist exceptionalism, regularly undertakes 
when self-righteously lecturing Muslims about their alleged moral 
failings and ethical lapses, in this case, in the realm of nuclear 
weapons. Pay attention, little Muslims, as the Times imparts to you its 
superior morality out of Animal Farm: Pakistani nukes bad, Israeli nukes 
invisible!

The lead editorial in the New York Times:

 "..experts say, it (Pakistan) has already manufactured enough fuel for 
40 to 100 additional weapons. That means Pakistan...could soon possess 
the world's fifth-largest arsenal, behind the United States, Russia, 
France and China but ahead of Britain and India. Washington and Moscow, 
with thousands of nuclear weapons each, still have the most weapons by 
far, but at least they are making serious reductions."

—"Pakistan's Nuclear Folly," NY Times Editorial, Feb. 20, 2011 (emphasis 
supplied).

The omission of "Israel" from the list is arrogant and brazen; the 
unwritten undercurrent being that the Judaic possession of nuclear 
weapons exists in such a vastly higher moral dimension of survival and 
security concerns with regard to the welfare of superior Israeli human 
beings, as to be off-limits to editorial consideration, journalistic 
scrutiny or analogies to other nations' WMD. It is an axiom: God's Holy 
People must possess the bomb, while, for unholy Pakistanis to do so in 
anything other than token amounts, is "folly." 

The Times, in finger-pointing at Pakistan's possession of weapons of 
mass destruction, enumerates the world's nuclear powers (Russia, France, 
China, Britain and India), while the unmentionable power in possession 
of those weapons is rendered invisible. This outrageous omission, which 
demonstrates the degree to which Zionist ideologues operate the Times 
under a patina of liberal universalism,  is in keeping with official 
policy of the "State of Israel," which decrees that Israeli nuclear 
possession is disputed, and should neither be confirmed nor denied by 
the media. 

Questions for the New York Times: 

How many nuclear weapons are there in the Israeli arsenal? Have they 
increased in recent years? Are the Israelis determined to gain 
additional nuclear weapons? If so, is this determination any kind of 
"folly" or cause for concern? What are the Israelis doing with the 
advanced, nuclear-powered submarine Germany donated to them? Are the 
Israelis under any obligation to reduce their nuclear stockpile, or is 
the "existential threat" posed by "militant Islam" a sufficient alibi 
for having no limits? How does the New York Times rank the Israeli 
nuclear weapon stockpile: sixth-largest, fourth-largest, third-largest? 
Under what onerous conditions of repression is Mordechai Vanunu — the 
Judaic nuclear technician and convert to Christianity, who was 
imprisoned for 18 years for the "crime" of confirming the existence of 
Israeli nuclear weapons -- living? Why, after all those years in prison, 
does he still face police harassment and restrictions on his freedom of 
expression in "the only democracy in the Middle East"?

I'll bet it is "anti-semitic" to ask these questions. 

We should all just be good scouts and limit ourselves to worrying about 
Pakistani nukes, while awaiting a signal from our high-caste commissars 
in New York to indicate to us when (if ever) it would not be 
"anti-semitic" to ask probing investigative questions about the 
existential threat which the enormous Israeli and American nuclear 
arsenals pose to sovereign Muslim nations, given the Israeli and 
American record of invasion, and mass murder of civilians, in Lebanon, 
Iraq, Afghanistan and Gaza. 

***

Michael Hoffman's writing and research is funded entirely by donations 
from readers, and the sale of his books, newsletters and broadcasts: 
www.revisionisthistory.org

****

The HOFFMAN WIRE is a public service of Independent History and Research, Box 849, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816 USA 

24 Hour Revisionist News Bureau: 
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/page1/news.html

--^----------------------------------------------------------------

+++


Peace.
Michael Santomauro 
@ 917-974-6367 

What sort of TRUTH is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.


Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.

.

__,_._,___

Extremely Revealing

 

From: Stan Hess <eamerica123@roadrunner.com>
Date: Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:19 AM


 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/04/books/04solzhenitsyn.html?pagewanted=all

 

Mr. Remnick defended Mr. Solzhenitsyn, saying he "in fact, is not anti-Semitic; his books are not anti-Semitic, and he is not, in his personal relations, anti-Jewish; Natalia's mother is Jewish, and not a few of his friends are, too."

 

Alexander's wife .. her mother was Jewish




--


Thank you and remember: 

Peace is patriotic!

Michael Santomauro
253 W. 72nd Street
New York, NY 10023

Call anytime: 917-974-6367

E-mail me anything:
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.


Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.

.

__,_._,___

Bush Interview banned in America - 2004

 

Bush Interview banned in America - 2004


--


Thank you and remember: 

Peace is patriotic!

Michael Santomauro
253 W. 72nd Street
New York, NY 10023

Call anytime: 917-974-6367

E-mail me anything:
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Feb 20, 2011

Japan vs. America | The Occidental Observer

 

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/02/japan-vs-america/#more-6773

Peace.
Michael Santomauro
@ 917-974-6367

What sort of TRUTH is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.


Find useful articles and helpful tips on living with Fibromyalgia. Visit the Fibromyalgia Zone today!

.

__,_._,___

American Zionism against the Egyptian Pro-Democracy Movement

 

American Zionism against the Egyptian Pro-Democracy Movement

By James Petras

                  One of the least analyzed aspects of the Egyptian pro-democracy movement and US policy toward it, is the role of the influential Zionist power configuration (ZPC) including the leading umbrella organization – the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (CPMAJO) – Congressional Middle East committee members, officials occupying strategic positions in the Obama Administration's Middle East bureaus, as well as prominent editors, publicists and journalists who play a major role in the prestigious newspapers and popular weekly magazines.  This essay is based on a survey of every issue of the Daily Alert (propaganda bulletin of the CPMAJO), the  NY Times and the Washington Post between January 25 – February 17, 2011.

                  From the very beginning of the Egyptian pro-democracy movement, the ZPC, called into question the legitimacy of the anti-dictatorial demands by focusing on the "Islamic threat".  In particular the ultra-Zionist Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the Daily Alert harped on the "threat" of a "Islamic takeover" by the Muslim Brotherhood even as the overwhelming number of non-Zionist experts and reporters in Egypt demonstrated that the vast majority of protestors were not members of any Islamic political movement, but largely advocates of a secular democratic republic (see the Financial Times 1/26/11-2/17/11).

                  Once their initial propaganda ploy failed, the ZPC developed several new propaganda lines:  the most prominent of which was a sustained defense of the Mubarak dictatorship as a bulwark of Israel's 'security' and guardian of the so-called "Peace Accord" of 1979.  In other words the ZPC pressured the US administration, via Congressional hearings, the press and AIPAC to support Mubarak as a key guarantor and collaborator of Israel's supremacy in the Middle East; although it meant that the Obama regime would have to openly oppose the million-member Egyptian freedom movement.  Israeli journalists, officials and their US Zionist counterparts willingly admitted that although the Mubarak regime was a bloody, corrupt tyranny, he should be supported because a democratic government in Cairo might end Egypt's decades-old collaboration with the brutal Israeli colonization of Palestine.

                  Once it became clear that uncritical support for Mubarak was no longer a viable position and the Obama Administration was appealing to the democratic movement to "dialogue" and negotiate with the dictator, the ZPC demanded caution in backing a "dialogue" and assurance that the dialogue did not lead to any abrupt changes in the Mubarak-Israeli treaty.  The ZPC and its scribes in the Washington Post presented Mubarak's hand picked "Vice President" Omar Suleiman, a notorious torturer and long-term collaborator of Israel's Mossad, as the legitimate interlocutor for the dialogue - even as he was unanimously rejected by the entire pro-democracy movement.

                  As the demonstrators grew in number and engulfed the major public squares throughout the country and extended beyond the first week, Israel and the ZPC promoted a possible alternative solution, which would keep Mubarak in power, during a nine month 'transition' period.  Caught off guard by the rapid growth of Egypt's pro-democracy movement, Israel's willing accomplices in the US administration and media conceded that an end to the dictatorship would be a good thing… if it was managed appropriately; namely, if it excluded or minimized the role of the Muslim Brotherhood and maximized the role of the pro-Israel military high command and intelligence services as overseers of the "transition".  The ZPC contemptuously rejected Egypt's independent pro-democracy movement and its leaders and sought to undermine the Egyptian people's movement by inflating the role of the "best organized" Islamic Brotherhood and warned of a future Islamist "seizure of power".

                  The leading Zionist official in the Obama Administration and AIPAC point man, Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg traveled to Israel to assure the Netanyahu/Lieberman regime that the US was in contact with the Egyptian military high command and sectors of the civilian opposition (ElBaradei) and that Washington's support of the democracy movement was conditioned by their assurance that the Israeli-Egyptian Treaty would remain unchanged. 

When Mubarak was finally forces to resign, handing power to a military junta, the ZPC congratulated the coup-makers, supported its demobilization of the movement and more important, celebrated the Egyptian generals' endorsement of the "Peace Agreement of 1979".  Now the Israeli propaganda machine began to harshly criticize Mubarak and portrayed the military coup as a positive step toward an "orderly and peaceful transition".  By 'orderly' the Zionist think tankers meant a 'regime change' that did nothing to change the blockade of Gaza, the regular shipment of fuel to Israel, or the hotline of collaboration between Tel Aviv and Cairo.   Israeli and American Zionists rejected early elections and promoted a prolonged process in which the Egyptian military, the US Administration and the ZPC could handpick members of the 'transitional constitutional and electoral commissions' committed to continuing Mubarak's policy of unconditional submission to Israel. By "peaceful" the pro-Israel diplomats in the Obama Administration meant clearing the streets of the masses of pro-democracy activists and demonstrators so that decisions could be controlled by the small circle of Mubarak military and civilian holdovers behind closed doors.  By "transition", the circles of Zionists propagandists, US/Israeli policy makers and Egyptian generals meant that nothing would change but the face of Mubarak.

                  While Israel and the bulk of Zionist scribes and propagandists in the US opposed or questioned the pro-democracy movements against pro-Israeli rulers in the Middle East, they embraced and publicized the social movements opposing the Iranian regime.  In every print and electronic outlet, the pro-Israel journalists emphasized the repressive, brutal nature of the Iranian regime, called for regime change and raised the specter of a military confrontation if Iranian warships traversed the Suez Canal, Iran's right by international maritime law.  Israeli security, the threat of 'radical Islam' and Iran were cited to place narrow limits on all discussions and debates over US policy regarding the enormous and growing mass pro-democracy movements throughout the Arab world.

                  The same prominent US Zionist scribes who, at first, defended US support for the dictatorial Mubarak regime and then supported the military takeover in Cairo, have now become born-again backers of anti-regime democrats in Iran.  This is not inconsistent:  the issue for US Zionists is how might pro-democracy movements affect Israel's colonial policies in Palestine and Israel's expanding power in the Middle East?  In other words, the ZPC in Congress and the White House are not concerned about promoting democracy through American foreign policy, but only about harnessing US diplomacy and military leverage to serve Israel.

                  What is striking about Obama's twist and turns in policy toward the mass popular struggles in Egypt is how closely it repeats and implements the policy positions of the US Zionist power configuration clearly presented in the '52 organizations' propaganda organ, the Daily Alert.

 

###

Feb. 20, 2011
--


Thank you and remember: 

Peace is patriotic!

Michael Santomauro
253 W. 72nd Street
New York, NY 10023

Call anytime: 917-974-6367

E-mail me anything:
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.


Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.

.

__,_._,___

TR 3/2004: W. Strauss: The End of the Legends

 

http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/3/Strauss342-351.html   For the Archives - some nice extractions from the late , great Alexander Solzhenitsyn's last book "Together for Two Hundred years",... yet to be translated, fully into English.  The theme is Yiddish origins of the Red/Bolshevik Terror.   


--


Thank you and remember: 

Peace is patriotic!

Michael Santomauro
253 W. 72nd Street
New York, NY 10023

Call anytime: 917-974-6367

E-mail me anything:
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Humor: Where white man went wrong

 

can I trade my debt and taxes in for the good ole days?
 
 





--


Thank you and remember: 

Peace is patriotic!

Michael Santomauro
253 W. 72nd Street
New York, NY 10023

Call anytime: 917-974-6367

E-mail me anything:
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___