Psychological Warfare and Terrorism

In a recent column, I suggested that one of the best ways to fight terrorism is by undermining the terrorist’s ideology. For example, by undercutting the belief that seventy-two virgins await the young martyr in paradise, you simultaneously undermine the will to fight.

That’s not to say that the standard method of fighting terrorists—with guns—can be safely abandoned. The propaganda war works best when it is reinforced by the shooting war. The more convincingly force is applied on the battlefield, the more convincing will be the ideological arguments.

If, for example, you’re an ISIS fighter and you see your buddies on the battlefield fall victim to an occasional bomb or bullet, that won’t necessarily shake your faith in the brides-to-be. As long as the war is going well, and as long as there’s a senior officer or two around to assure you that your fallen comrades are now enjoying their reward in paradise, your basic assumptions can remain intact. If, on the other hand, you look around and see nothing but death and destruction and no surviving officers to make sense of it all, you may begin to doubt the whole enterprise.

Just as importantly, a devastating defeat will have a salutary effect on people far away from the battlefield. The fellow in Brussels or Brisbane or Boston who’s thinking of joining the jihad will now have second thoughts—not only about ISIS, but also about the ideology that fuels it. Even fanatics can become realists in the face of overwhelming facts. In short, doubts can be accelerated by defeats.

Most people, of whatever religion, like to think that God is on their side of the battle, but in Islam belief and battlefield success are more closely linked than in, say, Christianity. Indeed, the seemingly miraculous military successes of Muhammad and the caliphs who followed him were taken by Muslims to be a proof that Islam is the true religion. Conversely, the religion of Islam has never fared well when its imperialistic ambitions have been thwarted. After Napoleon’s invasion and subjugation of Egypt, and subsequent European conquests and colonization of the Muslim world, Muslims began to seriously question the efficacy of Islam. As Islam scholar Raymond Ibrahim observes:

It was one thing to hold unhesitatingly to Islam and Sharia when Islam was conquering and subjugating non-Muslims, as it had done for well over a millennium. It was quite another thing for Muslims to remain confident in the Islamic way when the despised Christian infidels were conquering and subjugating the lands of Islam with great ease—displaying their superior weapons and technology, not to mention all the other perks of Western civilization.

During the colonial and post-colonial era, Muslim nations looked increasingly to the West as a model of emulation, and increasingly they looked away from Islam. Religious fanaticism declined, the jizya collection and the dhimmi laws were abolished, and, according to Ibrahim, “By the middle of the twentieth century, the Middle East’s Christians were widely seen, particularly by the educated elites and those in power, as no different from their Muslim counterparts.” Islam had been so thoroughly defanged by mid-century that, if Americans thought about it at all, they thought of it in terms of comedy movies like The Road to Morocco or Broadway musicals like Kismet.

The point is that this more moderate Islam of the not so distant past was made possible by Western military power and by the secular strongmen who succeeded the colonial rulers. Likewise, the recent renewed appeal of fundamentalist Islam has been made possible by shows of force: the overthrow of the Shah in Iran, the defeat of the Russians in Afghanistan, the bombing of the World Trade Center and numerous other successful terror attacks, the Arab Spring revolutions and, most recently, the march of ISIS across Syria and Iraq.

Such victories against technologically and/or numerically superior forces create a psychological momentum which makes militant Islam all the more appealing to potential recruits. Psychological momentum, however, can be halted and reversed by decisive battlefield defeats. The idea that nothing is ever accomplished by war is not quite true—as evidenced by the current pacifist inclinations of our former enemies, Japan and Germany. In this respect, it’s heartening to see that some Catholic leaders are coming around to acknowledging that, on occasion, there is no alternative to military force. I recently criticized Cardinal Parolin, the Vatican Secretary of State, for blaming terrorism on poverty and injustice, but in his address to the UN Security Council, he also called for intervention to combat the Islamic State:

My delegation wishes to recall that it is both licit and urgent to stop aggression through multilateral action and a proportionate use of force.

He was referring, of course, to the Catholic Church’s teaching on just war. One of the conditions of a just war is that force must be used proportionately. If you bulldoze my barn, I shouldn’t respond by burning down your house with all the people inside. The trouble is, when dealing with a group like ISIS, it’s difficult to say what constitutes proportionality. We are battling an armed force which also happens to have considerable symbolic significance for others. In figuring what a proportionate response would be, we have to take into consideration ISIS’ ability to inspire both lone-wolf and well-organized terror attacks around the world. Consequently, it’s crucial not only to degrade and contain ISIS, but to defeat it, and to defeat it in such a way as to crush the dreams of would-be jihadists.

As war historian Victor Davis Hanson has observed, successful military leaders strive to not only defeat the enemy, but also to discredit his ideology. This does not mean the killing of every last man on the enemy side, but it often involves the killing of the enemy’s dreams. After the defeat of Nazi Germany, Allied generals forced Nazi officials and thousands of nearby residents to take humiliating tours of the concentration camps and, in some cases, forced them to bury the dead prisoners. The prosecution of Nazi officials at the Nuremberg trials also helped to ensure that the Nazi dream would never rise again. Nazism was so thoroughly discredited as an ideology that, for decades after, no one—except for a few on the fringes—wanted to be associated with it in any way.

The Islamic State itself seems to fully understand the symbolic side of war. The crucifixions and ritual beheadings are not senseless acts, they are acts calculated to send a message. On one occasion, after capturing 250 Syrian soldiers, the Islamic State militants forced the prisoners to strip to their underwear and then paraded them in front of cameras before marching them to the place of execution. The message? Those who resist ISIS will suffer both defeat and dishonor; they fight for a worthless cause.

The ISIS campaign of psychological warfare, crude and ugly as it seems to the Western mind, has had the intended effect. Rallies to support ISIS have popped up in numerous Western cities, other Muslim groups have pledged their solidarity, and more and more Muslims are flocking to join its army. In ever-distracted America, football fans are abuzz about a penalty imposed on a Kansas City Chiefs player for prostrating himself in Muslim prayer after scoring a touchdown. Since Christian players are not penalized for similar behavior, fans were outraged. Meanwhile, on the same day, a much more significant sports-related event was playing out in Casablanca, Morocco. A video posted by the Middle East Media Research Institute showed a sizeable group of fans—perhaps one hundred—chanting “ISIS! ISIS!” and then “Allahu akbar, let’s go on jihad! Allahu akbar, let’s go on jihad!” American football fans—that is to say, Americans in general—might want to take note of the ever-expanding ISIS fan base. They might also do well to consider that the penalty ISIS imposes on losers is considerably more severe than fifteen yards.

If and when we get around to defeating ISIS, let’s hope we administer a psychological defeat as well—one that shows up not only the impotence of their fighting force, but also the emptiness of their vision. Else ISIS will rise again in some other form under some other name.

Exactly how this would be done is difficult to say. We are not, hopefully, going to descend to the level of displaying severed heads. And parading troops in their underwear is inconsistent with our concept of human dignity. Indeed, the whole idea of imposing a humiliating defeat goes against the grain of our highly developed sensitivities. Nonetheless, it seems time to reconsider our politically correct policy on waging war with terrorists—a policy which seems to say that war is simply a misunderstanding, and that after we’ve defeated you quietly and without fanfare, we will give you a clean cell and a copy of the Koran untouched by infidel hands because, of course, your religion has nothing to do with your terrorist behavior.

If we wish to avoid endless wars with jihadists, we should conclude our war with the Islamic State in such a way that Muslims around the world will rethink the notions of Islamic jihad and Islamic martyrdom. It’s not as improbable as it sounds. Not so long ago, historically speaking, Turks, Egyptians, and other Muslims who read the writing on the wall did rethink Islam. Faced with a West that was not only militarily powerful, but also culturally confident, they opted for a more muted form of Islam.

 Editor’s note: The image above titled “Napoleon and his General Staff in Egypt” was painted by Jean-Léon Gérôme in 1867.

William Kilpatrick

By

William Kilpatrick taught for many years at Boston College. He is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, including Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong; and Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad. His articles have appeared in numerous publications, including Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Aleteia, Saint Austin Review, Investor’s Business Daily, and First Things. His work is supported in part by the Shillman Foundation. For more on his work and writings, visit his website, turningpointproject.com

  • Becker

    Received from a friend in Canada:

    … just off the phone with LF in Ottawa, who described a fairly exciting day. Police called (her of all people) to lockdown the Basilica, just as late morning mass was about to begin. To his credit, the priest chose to ignore the order, which would have locked many elderly and dithering people outside. But as no one in Ottawa knew what was next, things were a bit anxious. There was also a power outage, at the time, and several other weird things happening, with no media explanation.

    It will get worse. Muslim fanatics are running fairly successful social media operations, and recruiting openly in the prisons, through the chaplain-Imams our taxes help to pay. Among the young in places like the University of Toronto I’ve noticed it is cool to identify with Muslim psychopaths; the old New Left are converting, or when not, at least giving their lip service to Hamas, Hezbollah, or any other enterprising Muslims who will promise to kill Jews. Indeed, direct antisemitism is in vogue among all the progressive intellectuals now: you’re considered a wimp if you say “Israeli” when you mean “Jew.” But these are people who all along have been, quite obviously, inhabited by devils, and as Francesca says, it is a great pity we have bishops in our Church who have never performed exorcisms.

    Did not like the look of our prime minister in video this evening. He looked shaken. Also, as an ancient and backward person, I was disturbed that they had removed the Honour Guard from the War Memorial. That is the sort of thing you leave defiantly in place. The only guy in that town with good instincts was the Sergeant-at-Arms in Parliament, in his fine neo-mediaeval costumage, who made sure to shoot the Muslim a sufficient number of times to spare us the expense of a trial.

    • DE-173

      “Muslim fanatics are running fairly successful social media operations, and recruiting openly in the prisons, through the chaplain-Imams our taxes help to pay.”

      That goes on South of the Border as well.

      • St JD George

        South of the North Pole you mean?

        • DE-173

          The Canadian border; for a time I was briefly employed in the fiscal operations of the correctional system. It is well known that Islam is a gang operation, it imbues adherents with a sense of masculinity and resentment (boxer Muhammad Ali converted because his his given surname meant “dirt”) and a rich source of grievances, especially during Ramadan.

          • St JD George

            Lighten up. My point was that it seems this “peace” is becoming a universal contagion proving nearly always fatal to those that stand in it’s path. Maybe CDC (oops) should be charged with finding a cure.

    • AnneM040359

      Thank-you for that on the ground info.

  • St JD George

    Good article Bill, as usual, thanks. Honestly, I still struggle with what is the best approach. We all know the old saying if you can’t say anything nice then don’t say anything at all, and every general knows that sometimes discretion is the better part of valor, you have to pick and chose your fights in accessing the goals of the greater campaign. However, I will never understand how those that know (or should know) can get up and say that Islam is a religion of peace vs. just staying quiet. Buddhism is a religion of peace, Islam is not. Of course there are practitioners who are moderate because they find the carnage and insanity of the call to jihad revolting, but that largely only exists among sects, or sub-sects. If you are walk into the wrong sect gang turf with the wrong turbine colors, watch your back. The capitulation to power is momentary and pragmatic, and only serves to drive resentment underground where it will eventually build up pressure in the form of the call to Jihad or the practice of Taqiyya as long as their are Imam’s who cite the Q’ran correctly.

    I sometimes think of it in the simple terms of a Cubs fan (sorry), no matter how long they are down there will always be loyal followers. Or in the religion of politics, even a president who defiled the oval office taking advantage sexually of an barely of age intern is still revered by half the nation. How are you going to change that?

  • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

    We are being raped, Islam is the rapist. Mr. Patrick Buchanan aside, I think the rain of death on Nazi Germany and Japan was ‘about right’ as a response to Satanic evil.

    • DE-173

      Be careful, you’ll insist incite the indignities of at least one Crisis author and some commenters; who insist that we were supposed to have prosecuted the Second World War with a carefully choreographed escalation and the contrived niceties of an eighth grade cotillion, and allowed it to continue “ad infinitum”, rather than ending the damn thing.

      • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

        Ain’t that the truth! I was just reading about the ‘women monsters’ of the SS. One SS officer’s wife would go into the ghetto, smile and hold out a piece of candy to a starving little Jewish child and then as he opened his mouth she would shoot him in the mouth. She had this cute little feminine, decorative pistol in her purse for this ‘sport’.

        • DE-173

          Well, we’ll have to reserve judgment according to “JDonnell”.

          Oh the heck with him; she had canine DNA, but I might just have caused every dog in the world to howl in protest.

      • Watosh

        Ah yes, very American lets end the damn thing. It has a certain logic, if you kill anyone who might threaten you then you will be secure. But I don’t believe it is the Catholic way of handling things. I believe this final solution approach was tried by the Nazi’s, but it didn’t work out for them.

        • DE-173

          Had we screwed around and pussyfooted around in Germany, and Hitler had time to complete his heavy water experiments, and perhaps figured out how to stop ME-262’s from exploding, develop better guidance systems for the V-2, then what?

          And what if Japan had developed its proposed ten-engined transatlantic bomber?

          Now why don’t you live your convictions and start sending your social security checks back to the return address from whatever part of West Virginia has the unique displeasure of your physical presence.

          • Watosh

            DE-173 has mastered the knack of making a person’s argument himself and then attacking it. He assumes that unless we ruthlessly committed war crimes in prosecuting the war that Germany and Japan would have time to develop terrible weapons that could cause great harm. That amounts to nothing more than making an assumption that will support his conclusion. One can win a lot of arguments that way.

            Well if it gives him pleasure …. Myself, I am aware that Christ has said “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.” So you may call me by other names, but being a Catholic I must try to follow Christ. I hope you will understand and forgive me for not subscribing to your approach.

            • DE-173

              Watosh has mastered the tactic of taking his bizzare pseudo-Catholic world view and couching it as Catholic orthodoxy, and making ipso facto allegations of “war crimes”.

              There were no “smart bombs” in World War II, and Germany took no pains to keep military targets outside civilian areas. It guaranteed unnecessary civilian deaths. As for Japan, unlike you; I’ve read the minutes of the A-Bomb targeting committee; they explicitly factored in the MINIMIZATION of civilian deaths. There was a thought to bomb Tokyo, it was rejected- EVEN THOUGH it would have struck at the heart of the Empire and brought the war to the Imperial elite.

              Smarter and more death averse people than you had to figure out all the alternatives, including resorting to a conventional invasion that presented the possibility that TENS OF MILLIONS would be killed.

              Of course if you REALLY believed what you wrote, you’d act on your convictions and not benefit from things you believe are moral abominations, but you won’t.

              All weapons are awful, but there’s a certain curious mind that thinks being incinerated from chemical weapons is better than incineration by fission.

              I can forgive just about anything; but I do not forget or allow things to go unchallenged. It’s not up to me to forgive you for using prideful blasphemy to commit calumny. You are truly an example of why Shakespeare wrote that the devil can quote Scripture to his own ends.

              • Watosh

                And you are scornful of Moslems for their blind faith in the scribblings of Mohammed. I would have a better chance of persuading a Moslem who worships Allah that his faith is misplaced, than I would persuading some Americans that the American Constitution, rather than the Decalogue, was not handed down to Moses by God. The same blind faith is operative in each. and dynamite won’t separate them from this faith. Like ISIS types, anyone holding a different view or not displaying a blind faith in the religion of America, which is America, must convert or be subject to denunciation and emotionally attacked with any weapon available.

                The Catholic faith is one that places restrictions on individual behavior. Liberals resent this, and say so openly, whereas Americans of the conservative bent embrace war because then they can in good conscience ignore restrictions on their behavior. In war they feel any action is justified in order to defeat the enemy. Not too far from the mindset of ISIS fanatics.

                Again I say to you, I try to follow the admonitions of Christ, in peace or war. If this makes you want to verbally behead me, well, I can’t stop you.

                • DE-173

                  What is your malfunction that causes you to bring your personal grievances into a conversation that is unrelated to the matter at hand.

                  Nobody is blinder or more rigid than you. You have erected a magical kingdom in your mind (known as a delusion).

                  The Constitution, the framers, none of that is at issue here, except with you. We already have your opinion on those matters.

                  The issue is the prudential decisions involved in prosecution of World War II, and your charge that “war crimes” were committed, as a matter of policy, and that nobody can disagree with you because as one of the annoying PHOs on this board; your judgment is infallible and indefeasible, even though you haven’t offered the slightest evidence to support your charge, let alone made an airtight case, in your mad rush to judge the dead who made it possible to render your bromides.

                  It’s easy to say “I follow the admonitions of Christ”, but it doesn’t make it so. My TV is full of sacharine smiles telling me that some preacher or personality speaks for Jesus.

                  Again I say, if this is such an unacceptable and irredeemably corrupt country; find another that suits you. Don’t sit behind a computer assuring yourself that your inane screeds are moral rectitude, act on your convictions; renounce your citizenship and disclaim your security.

                  If you can’t do that, then can it and stop wasting kiobytes.

                  • Watosh

                    I have had disagreements with people before and in fact it has been an enjoyable exercise many times to engage in an argument over some point. It has been for me many times an intellectual sport, matching wits and points with intelligent friends whose object was not to win a debate but to get closer to the truth. But while when I engaged with discussions with others we after disagreed, we always were careful to repeat other views during the discussion. I recall watching the TV program Agronsky and Company as a friend of mine was one of the regulars there. they went at each other, one was a liberal, one a Republican conservative, and several were journalists with strong opinions. I enjoyed watching their banter and their verbal jousting. They never were mean and nasty though, I guess one could say they were brought up to display good manners.

                    Now in reviewing the various comments made in DISQUs, there were some participants who routinely filled their replies with sneers, insults and various ad hominem tactics, and one of the worst offenders has been DE-173. He possibly gets his kicks from deliberately baiting people. He likes to bully people with his verbal assaults. It seems like he can;t refrain from being nasty.

                    He has succeeded in getting me to make comments about some issues in which DE-173 seemed woefully misinformed. I judge other people by myself, and if someone points out to me that I have been wrong about something, I am a bit chagrined naturally, but nevertheless I am grateful to discover I was wrong about something. I am after the truth, not that I am right about something and those disagreeing with me are wrong, And if I think someone is wrong I don’t tell them they not only wrong but they are mentally deficient. I have been wrong during my life, but I have also been one to look at all sides of issues as that is recognized by intelligent people as necessary to gain the truth. So I have tried to discuss certain issues and to bring up things that someone may not be aware of. I really don’t know what to make of people like DE-173 as I haven’t fortunately encountered people like him. Oh I have encountered some hard headed people but they weren’t nasty sneering adversaries.

                    Now once many years back my wife was upstairs in our house when an egg splattered against our upstairs window. My wife immediately went downstairs and out the door and saw a couple boys in a neighboring yard hold eggs in their hands. She told them to stop and then went to their house and told their mother about the egg throwing. That evening when I came home from work , the boys father came calling with his sons and as we stood out on the lawn he, the boys father, immediately launched into a denial that his boys had thrown the eggs. He said that he knew his boys did not do that, his boys wouldn’t do that, and he was absolutely positive that his boys were not the ones who did the egg throwing. Then he stopped and asked the boys, “You didn’t throw the eggs did you? The boys kind of looked down toward the ground and shook their heads saying “No we didn’t do this” Confronted with that behavior, I just turned my back to them and walked away. With people like that there was no use talking. I say this because I have come to the same conclusion about DE-173.

                    • DE-173

                      Next time you “match wits”, don’t leave yours home.

              • Le Pen

                World War II was not only the greatest military conflict in history, it was also America’s most important twentieth-century war. It brought profound and permanent social, governmental and cultural changes in the United States, and has had a great impact on how Americans regard themselves and their country’s place in the world.

                This global clash — with the United States and the other “Allies” on one side, and Nazi Germany, imperial Japan and the other “Axis” countries on the other — is routinely portrayed in the US as the “good war,” a morally clear-cut conflict between Good and Evil. / 1

                In the view of British author and historian Paul Addison, “the war served a generation of Britons and Americans as a myth which enshrined their essential purity, a parable of good and evil.” / 2 Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme wartime Commander of American forces in Europe, and later US president for eight years, called the fight against Nazi Germany “the Great Crusade.” / 3 And President Bill Clinton said that in World War II the United States “saved the world from tyranny.” / 4 Americans are also told that this was an unavoidable and necessary war, one that the US had to wage to keep from being enslaved by cruel and ruthless dictators.

                Whatever doubts or misgivings Americans may have had about their country’s role in Iraq, Vietnam, or other overseas conflicts, most accept that the sacrifices made by the US in World War II, especially in defeating Hitler’s Germany, were entirely justified and worthwhile.

                For more than 60 years, this view has been reinforced in countless motion pictures, on television, by teachers, in textbooks, and by political leaders. The reverential way that the US role in the war has been portrayed moved Bruce Russett, professor of political science at Yale University, to write: / 5

                “Participation in the war against Hitler remains almost wholly sacrosanct, nearly in the realm of theology … Whatever criticisms of twentieth-century American policy are put forth, United States participation in World War II remains almost entirely immune. According to our national mythology, that was a ‘good war,’ one of the few for which the benefits clearly outweighed the costs. Except for a few books published shortly after the war and quickly forgotten, this orthodoxy has been essentially unchallenged.”

                How accurate is this hallowed portrayal of America’s role in World War II? As we shall see, it does not hold up under close examination.

                First, a look at the outbreak of war in Europe.

                When the leaders of Britain and France declared war against Germany on September 3, 1939, they announced that they were doing so because German military forces had attacked Poland, thereby threatening Polish independence. In going to war against Germany, the British and French leaders transformed what was then a geographically limited, two-day-old clash between Germany and Poland into a continental, European-wide conflict.

                It soon became obvious that the British-French justification for going to war was not sincere. When Soviet Russian forces attacked Poland from the East two weeks later, ultimately taking even more Polish territory than did Germany, the leaders of Britain and France did not declare war against the Soviet Union. And although Britain and France went to war supposedly to protect Polish independence, at the end of the fighting in 1945 – after five and a half years of horrific struggle, death and suffering – Poland was still not free, but instead was entirely under the brutal rule of Soviet Russia.

                Sir Basil Liddell Hart, an outstanding twentieth-century British military historian, put it this way: / 6

                “The Western Allies entered the war with a two-fold object. The immediate purpose was to fulfill their promise to preserve the independence of Poland. The ultimate purpose was to remove a potential menace to themselves, and thus ensure their own security. In the outcome, they failed in both purposes. Not only did they fail to prevent Poland from being overcome in the first place, and partitioned between Germany and Russia, but after six years of war which ended in apparent victory they were forced to acquiesce in Russia’s domination of Poland – abandoning their pledges to the Poles who had fought on their side.”

                In 1940, shortly after he was named prime minister, Winston Churchill spelled out, in two often quoted speeches, his reasons for continuing Britain’s war against Germany. In his famous “Blood, Sweat and Tears” speech, the great British wartime leader said that unless Germany was defeated, there would be “no survival for the British empire, no survival for all that the British empire has stood for…” A few weeks later, in his “Finest Hour” address, Churchill said: “Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire.” / 7

                How strange those words sound today. Even though Britain supposedly “won,” or at least was on the winning side in the war, the once-mighty British empire has vanished into history. No British leader today would dare defend the often brutal record of British imperialism, including killing and bombing in order to maintain exploitative colonial rule over millions in Asia and Africa. Nor would any British leader today dare to justify killing people in order to uphold “Christian civilization,” not least for fear of offending Britain’s large and rapidly growing non-Christian population.

                Americans like to believe that “good guys” win, and “bad guys” lose, and, in international affairs, that “good” countries win wars, and “bad” countries lose them. In keeping with this view, Americans are encouraged to believe that the US role in defeating Germany and Japan demonstrated the righteousness of the “American Way,” and the superiority of our country’s form of government and society.

                But if there is any validity to this view, it would be more accurate to say that the war’s outcome showed the righteousness of the “Soviet Way,” and the superiority of the Soviet Communist form of society and government. Indeed, for decades that was a proud claim of Moscow’s leaders. As one official Soviet history book, published in the 1970s, put it:

                “The war demonstrated the superiority of the Soviet socialist social and state system … The war further demonstrated the social and political unity of the Soviet people … Once again it underscored the significance of the guiding and organizing role of the Communist Party in socialist society. The Communist Party consolidated millions of people in their fight against the fascist aggressors … The selfless dedication demonstrated by the Communist Party during the war years further solidified the trust, respect and love it enjoys among the Soviet people.” / 8

                In fact, Hitler’s Germany was defeated, first and foremost, by the Soviet Union. Some 70-80 percent of German combat forces were destroyed by the Soviet military on the Eastern front. The D-Day landing in France by American and British forces, which is often portrayed in the United States as a critically important military blow against Nazi Germany, was launched in June 1944 — that is, less than a year before the end of the war in Europe, and months after the great Soviet military victories at Stalingrad and Kursk, which were decisive in Germany’s defeat. / 9

                What were the American goals in World War II, and how successful was the US in achieving them?

                In 1941 President Franklin Roosevelt, together with British prime minister Winston Churchill, issued a formal declaration of Allied war aims, the much-publicized “Atlantic Charter.” In it, the United States and Britain declared that they sought “no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned,” that they would “respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of governments under which they will live,” and that they would strive “to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them.”

                It soon became apparent, though, that this solemn pledge of freedom and self-government for “all peoples” was little more than empty propaganda. / 10 This is hardly surprising, given that America’s two most important military allies in the war were Great Britain and the Soviet Union – that is, the world’s foremost imperialist power, and the world’s cruelest tyranny.

                At the outbreak of war in 1939, Britain ruled over the largest colonial empire in history, holding more millions of people against their will than any regime before or since. This vast empire included what is now India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, and South Africa.

                America’s other great wartime ally, the Soviet Union, was, by any objective measure, the most tyrannical or oppressive regime of its time, and a vastly more cruel despotism than Hitler’s Germany. As historians acknowledge, the victims of Soviet dictator Stalin greatly outnumber those who perished as a result of Hitler’s policies. Robert Conquest, a prominent scholar of twentieth century Russian history, estimates the number of those who lost their lives as a consequence of Stalin’s policies as “no fewer than 20 million.” / 11

                During the war the United States helped substantially to maintain Stalin’s tyranny, and to aid the Soviet Union in oppressing additional millions of Europeans, while also helping Britain to maintain or re-establish its imperial rule over many millions in Asia and Africa. / 12

                Paul Fussell, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who served in World War II as a US Army lieutenant, wrote in his acclaimed book Wartime that “the Allied war has been sanitized and romanticized almost beyond recognition by the sentimental, the loony patriotic, the ignorant and the bloodthirsty.” / 13

                An important feature of this “sanitized” view is the belief that whereas the Nazi German regime was responsible for many terrible war crimes and atrocities, the Allies, and especially the United States, waged war humanely. In fact, the record of Allied misdeeds is a long one, and includes the British-American bombing of German cities, a terroristic campaign that took the lives of more than half a million civilians, the genocidal “ethnic cleansing” of millions of civilians in eastern and central Europe, and the large-scale postwar mistreatment of German prisoners. / 14

                After “forty months of war duty and five major battles” in which Edgar L. Jones served as “an ambulance driver, a merchant seaman, an Army historian, and a war correspondent,” he wrote an article dispelling some myths about the Americans’ role in the war. “What kind of war do civilians suppose we fought, anyway?,” he told readers of The Atlantic monthly. “We shot prisoners in cold blood, wiped out hospitals, strafed lifeboats, killed or mistreated enemy civilians, finished off the enemy wounded, tossed the dying into a hole with the dead, and in the Pacific boiled the flesh off enemy skulls to make table ornaments for sweethearts, or carved their bones into letter-openers.” / 15

                Shortly after the end of the war, the victorious powers put Germany’s wartime leaders on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity. In doing so, the US and its allies held German leaders to a standard that they did not respect themselves.

                US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson was not the only high-ranking American official to acknowledge, at least in private, that the claim of unique Allied righteousness was mere pretense. In a letter to the President, written while he was serving as the chief US prosecutor at the great Nuremberg trial of 1945-1946, Jackson acknowledged that the Allies “have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of [German] prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them [for forced labor in France]. We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it. We say aggressive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty over the Baltic States based on no title except conquest.” / 16

                At the conclusion of the Nuremberg trial of 1945-1946, the respected British weekly The Economist cited Soviet crimes, and then added, “Nor should the Western world console itself that the Russians alone stand condemned at the bar of the Allies’ own justice.” The Economist editorial went on:

                “… Among crimes against humanity stands the offence of the indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations. Can the Americans who dropped the atom bomb and the British who destroyed the cities of western Germany plead ‘not guilty’ on this count? Crimes against humanity also include the mass expulsion of populations. Can the Anglo-Saxon leaders who at Potsdam condoned the expulsion of millions of Germans from their homes hold themselves completely innocent?… The nations sitting in judgment [at Nuremberg] have so clearly proclaimed themselves exempt from the law which they have administered.” / 17

                Another popular American assumption is that this country’s enemies in World War II were all non-democratic dictatorships. In fact, on each side there were regimes that were repressive or dictatorial, as well as governments that had broad public support. Many of the countries allied with the US were headed by governments that were oppressive, dictatorial, or otherwise non-democratic. / 18 Finland, a democratic republic, was an important wartime partner of Hitler’s Germany.

                In crass violation of their own solemnly proclaimed principles, the US, British and Soviet statesmen disposed of tens of millions of people with no regard for their wishes. The deceit and cynicism of the Allied leaders was perhaps most blatant in the infamous British-Soviet “percentages agreement” to divide up South Eastern Europe. At a meeting with Stalin in 1944, Churchill proposed that in Romania the Soviets should have 90 percent influence or authority, and 75 percent in Bulgaria, and that Britain should have 90 percent influence or control in Greece. In Hungary and Yugoslavia, the British leader suggested, each should have 50 percent. Churchill wrote all this out on a piece of paper, which he pushed across to Stalin, who made a check mark on it and passed it back. Churchill then said, “Might it not be thought rather cynical if it seemed we had disposed of these issues, so fateful to millions of people, in such an off-hand manner? Let us burn the paper.” “No, you keep it,” replied Stalin. / 19

                To solidify the Allied wartime coalition – which was formally known as the “United Nations” — President Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Churchill, and Soviet premier Stalin met together on two occasions: in November 1943 at Tehran, in occupied Iran, and in February 1945 in Yalta, in Soviet Crimea. The three Allied leaders accomplished what they accused the Axis leaders of Germany, Italy and Japan of conspiring to achieve: world domination.

                During a 1942 meeting in Washington, President Roosevelt candidly told the Soviet foreign minister that “the United States, England and Russia, and perhaps China, should police the world and enforce disarmament [of all others] by inspection.” / 20

                To secure the global rule of the victorious powers after the war, the “Big Three” Allied leaders established the United Nations organization to serve as a permanent world police force. Once Germany and Japan were defeated, though, the US and the Soviet Union squared off against each other, which made it impossible for the UN to function as President Roosevelt had intended. While the US and Soviet Union each sought for decades to secure hegemony in its own sphere of influence, the two “super powers” were also rivals in a decades-long struggle for global supremacy.

                In his book, A People’s History of the United States, historian Howard Zinn wrote: / 21

                “The victors were the Soviet Union and the United States (also England, France and Nationalist China, but they were weak). Both these countries now went to work – without swastikas, goose-stepping, or officially declared racism, but under the cover of ‘socialism’ on the one side, and ‘democracy’ on the other, to carve out their own empires of influence. They proceeded to share and contest with one another the domination of the world, to build military machines far greater than the Fascist countries had built, to control the destinies of more countries than Hitler, Mussolini, and Japan had been able to. They also acted to control their own populations, each country with its own techniques – crude in the Soviet Union, sophisticated in the United States – to make their rule secure.”

                The United States officially entered World War II after the Japanese attack on the US naval base at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii on December 7, 1941. Until then, the US was officially a neutral country, and most Americans wanted to keep out of the war that was then raging in Europe and Asia. In spite of the country’s neutral status, President Roosevelt and his administration, together with much of the US media, prodded the American people into supporting war against Germany. A large-scale propaganda campaign was mounted to persuade Americans that Hitler and his Nazi “henchmen” or “hordes” were doing everything in their power to take over and “enslave” the entire world, and that war with Hitler’s Germany was inevitable.

                As part of this effort, the President and other high-ranking American officials broadcast fantastic lies about supposed plans by Hitler and his government to attack the United States and impose a global dictatorship. / 22

                President Roosevelt’s record of lies is acknowledged even by his admirers. Among those who have sought to justify his policy is the eminent American historian Thomas A. Bailey, who wrote: / 23

                “Franklin Roosevelt repeatedly deceived the American people during the period before Pearl Harbor … He was like the physician who must tell the patient lies for the patient’s own good … The country was overwhelmingly noninterventionist to the very day of Pearl Harbor, and an overt attempt to lead the people into war would have resulted in certain failure and an almost certain ousting of Roosevelt in 1940, with a complete defeat of his ultimate aims.”

                • DE-173

                  Oh the lunatics are really out. Must be a full moon.

                  • Sarah

                    What a great comeback! Le Pen must be wrong because you called him a lunatic!

                    • DE-173

                      And he must be right because you agree?

          • Mike

            And what about the nine million Germans killed by the Allies at the end of WWII, or the fact that the Bolshevik revolution and subsequent murder of millions of Christians was funded by Wall St?

            War crimes happen on all sides, and the United States is as guilty as anyone. Just because our goverment claims to uphold human rights does not make it true. I am sure Stalin and Hitler said the same thing and their people believed them.

            • DE-173

              The Bolshevik Revolution was financed by Germany; they gave Lenin the money so he could displace the Tsar; it was no accident that as soon as Lenin took over he ceased hostilities with Germany that was the power he whored himself to-additionally, In 1917 the financial center of the world was London, not Wall Street. Our involvement was late and the result of the discovery that Germany was attempting to instigate a war between Mexico and the United States as the sinking of the RMS Lusitania.
              As for the “Allies” killing Germans, there were certainly atrocities committed during the invasion of Germany-but principally by the Soviets.
              To suggest that is anywhere comparable to the systematic extermination of people
              Apparently, the relativism you displayed in in your comments calling for the ecclesial syncretism guides your clearly uninformed view of the

              • Mike

                It was Jacob Shiff of Kuen Loeb and Co of New York that was the main financer of the Bolsheviks, along with Max Warburg of Germany (behind what you mentioned) and various bankers from the major western financial centers.  The Christian tsar was the main enemy in the world of international finance at the time, and that’s why the bankers plotted to overthrow him. Also, it served as a means to loot Russia’s vast resourses. 

                The Lusitania sinking was a false flag designed to justify Americas entry into the war. The First World War was instigated by international finance designed to subjugate all the nations of Europe by means of war debt.  The US Federal Reserve was created for the same purpose, ultimately leading to the great depression. 

                How can you say the deliberate extermination of millions of Christians under the Soviet Union is any less evil then the atrocities committed by Hitler? The Soviets deliberately killed and starved to death 9 million Germans after the war, and our goverment was completely OK with it. General Patton was not, and that’s why they killed him. Are their lives any less valuable then the Jewish dead? Where is the holocaust museums for the millions of Germans, Russians and Slavs, mostly Christians that were exterminated during and after WWII? 

                I do not believe for one second that America and the Soviets were great friends and then all of a sudden became bitter enemies after the war. Both governments were controlled by the same international bankers.   The “cold war” hoax was staged as a means to justify massive military spending and destroy nationalist resistance around the world in the name of fighting “communism” to forward the internationalist agenda.  Western capitalism and Soviet communism served as two sides of the same coin. 

                There is a lot of blood on everyone’s hands, but ultimately the root of all this killing lies with  the international financial system, which is Satan’s mechanism for ruling the world, as scripture tells us. 

                Follow the money. 

        • Chris Cloutier

          The final solution was Hitlers program for exterminating the jews, and didn’t have anything to do with conducting military operations. Fortunately, neither worked out for the Nazis.

    • Chris Cloutier

      I have a problem with proportionality. I say if you are attacked than you have an obligation to secure victory as fast and as efficiently as possible, to minimize
      the damage to life and property. With a proportional response it seems to me, things will only drag on as each side escalates a little at a time. It would prolong rather than shorten the conflict. Decisive action applied with as much force as necessary can work even in asymmetrical conflicts like we are in now. The response must be brutally harsh. I don’t think we in the west have the stomach for it anymore.

      • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

        ‘Nice’ war and ‘proportionate’ war is an idea of people who have never been IN one.

  • Mike

    What a bunch of baloney. “ISIS” and essentially all “muslim terrorists” are paid mercenaries on the pay roll of western intelligence agencies, the Mossad and our business partners in the Persian Gulf. 

    Our foreign policy for decades (and in fact all the way back to WWI, when the British created Wahabbi Islam to destroy the Ottoman Empire) has been designed for one thing and one thing only, to prevent a rise of pan-Arab nationalism. We have created all sorts of “terrorists” to accomplish this objective, from the Muslim Brotherhood to Al Queda and now ISIS. 

    The reason is simple, weak Arab states that are constantly fighting each other can not unite against Israel, or kick western business interests out of the region. Our goal is ti simply fragment the region as much as possible. Also we can use the so called “terror threat” as a way to scare the American people into more bogus wars we can’t afford, in order to accomplish the objectives of the money power, with no regard for the fate of Christians or the people of the region. 

    This is exactly why we go after stong moderate, Christian protecting “dictators”, and leave fundamentalist tyrannies (Saudi Arabia) alone, it’s because the latter is a better business partner. Naturally, like they used “Al Queda” to remove Saddam Hussein, they will use ISIS to remove Assad, and then move on to the big prize, which is Iran, in accordance with the goals of the Wolfowitz doctrine and The Project for A New American century

    It’s also a way to divide Christians against Muslims, when we should be united against the culture of death.  The ethnic cleansing of Christians and Muslims taking place in Syria and Iraq is all planned by western goverments in order to allow for the terroist nation of Isreal to expand its borders, and create a more favorable future environment for Western buisness intrests. 

    The goal of the devil is always Divide and Conquer. 

    • DE-173

      “ISIS” and essentially all “muslim terrorists” are paid mercenaries on the pay roll of western intelligence agencies, the Mossad and our business partners in the Persian Gulf. ”

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If3SXJeZzMQ

      • Alan

        DE-173, What have you been smoking? I understand the history and nuances, but what you have stated is demonstrably false and very misleading.

        • Alan

          Sorry,
          That should have been directed to Mike…

        • Mike

          And where’s your proof?

      • Kilpatrick murders Muslims

        What an idiotic response. You show that you are a liar and a Zionist troll. You defend the lies that enslave you with glee. Of course ISIS is another paid-bogeyman. What an ignoramus you are, who pretends to know things. You still think 911 was done by Muslims with box cutters!! What a joke.

        • Rob B.

          “Of course ISIS is another paid-bogeyman. — And the evidence is, where exactly?

        • DE-173

          Troll?
          You exemlify the term.

    • St JD George

      Wow, quite an interesting theory there Mike – a little out there. Forget the conspiracy stuff, you’ll sleep better … until you’re paid a visit by a freshly conscripted and friendly Imam mentee. Stick to the Q’ran and forget the conspiracy novels, you’ll find it’s full of all kinds of “good stuff”. You know, the kind that is being stuffed into the heads of those before they go off and commit suicide and murder.

      • Mike

        Since you have no rebuttal to what I said, you resort to sarcasm and the charge of “conspiracy theory”.

        It is obvious that the western goverment has been funding Muslim terroists for years, and if you understand the geo politics of the region or the business prespective of things it’s pretty easy to understand why they do.

        Wasn’t ISIS the “moderate” Syrian rebels that we armed to take down Assad?

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      The real enemy is Iran which, with its nuclear ambitions, is the only power to pose an existential threat to Israel.

      If ISIS is destabilising Syria, Iran’s ally and engages Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy, in Lebanon, so much the better. If its actions lead to the break-up of Iran, isolating and neutralising its pro-Iranian Shia population that is all to the good.

      Western policy in the region should be governed by one clear and simple principle – the land of Israel, for the people of Israel, according to the Torah of Israel.
      +-

      • DE-173

        Western policy in the region should be governed by one clear and simple principle – the land of Israel, for the people of Israel, according to the Torah of Israel.

        And what of the Chistian diaspora?

      • Mike

        No, the Catholic Church is Israel, not the people currently occupying the holy land. The majority of “Jews” in Israel are of Eastern European decent and have little if any Semitic blood. 

        In fact, it is utterly impossible to prove who the racial decedents of Abraham are, as the priestly records were destroyed after the fall of the second temple. (symbolizing the end of Judaism and the beginning of Christianity)  Modern day “Jews” are not the only people to claim to be blood decedents. Arabs, Africans and Old English Kings have all made the same claim. 

        Regardless, protecting Israel should be of no concern to Christians, because we are the seed of Abraham by faith. (Galatians 3:29) It is the children of the spirit, not the flesh that are gods chosen people, which includes everyone who accepts Christ regardless of race. 

        It is a waste of American tax dollars, lives, a threat to our national security and a crime against humanity for us to unequivocally support this terrorist, apartheid state as we do.  

        I think all the wonderful Zionist “Christians” in congress, bought and paid for by AIPAC would agree with you. They would rather have muslim terrorists rule the middle east and ethnically cleanse the Christians in the region, because they consider the security of the Zionist entity more important then the lives of Christians.  They would love see Christians of America give their life in WWIII, would destroy half the planet, and would further ruin this country economically for this “noble” cause.

      • Any thought to protecting the indigenous Christian populations? That used to be Western policy in the region.

    • DE-173 is a liar

      Excellent. Truth has no place on this Zionist rag, so watch out!

      • DE-173

        I thought I was a Zionist.

  • TERRY

    Sam harris is, as I’m sure most of you know, a prominent atheist. I would invite you all to google ‘Sam Harris Los Angeles Times September 18 2006’

    Interesting reading

  • “The idea that nothing is ever accomplished by war is not quite true—as evidenced by the current pacifist inclinations of our former enemies, Japan and Germany.”
    Hear, hear! That is so true that when i hear others say the contrary I have to shake my head. Did the Civil War end slavery for good in this country? Of course. Did the American Revolutionary War decide the issue of legislation without representation? Of course. Did the Punic Wars decide that Rome would be the main power of the European continent? Of course. Did the Islamic wars of conquest in the 7th century accomplish Islam as the leading world power for centuries? Of course. The list is quite long of wars that accomplished many things. Now whether the means of war for those accomplishments were moral, one has to take them on a case by case basis.
    This is an excellent piece Mr. Kilpatrick.

    • Watosh

      And didn’t the “war to end all wars” end all wars? And where is Rome now. All this calls to mind the poem by Shelley, Ozymandias. As for the civil war ending slavery in this country, this was the only country that had to have a war to end slavery, slavery was abolished in other countries by peaceful means.

      It is always good to keep one’s respective. Now you take ISIS, that is all a lot of people talk about now. What a threat ISIS is. Well I grew up when we were in a war with two powerful countries, that had millions in uniform, and had the industrialization to support their forces. ISIS doesn’t even have n Air Force, their equipment is American made for the most part, many what they captured or were given by the U.S. and the Saudi’s. Their army is reckoned to be around 30,000 strong. Well after witnessing what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had at their disposal. ISIS has no Navy either. 30,000 strong! And this scares us? Turkey, our NATO ally sit right next to the territory ISIS has control of with a well equipped Army of around 400,00 thousand. Iran is an enemy of ISIS. Syria is also trying to beat them down, and when they try to move into the shiite areas of Iraq they will be checked. The Kurds are resisting them. They talk big about installing a Caliphate, but that is bravado. They behead people but Jolly England used to behead people and draw and quarter them too in a public display. They are not nice types, fanatics, but they are not in a position to do much damage to the U.S. It is not easy to inflict terrorist damage in the U.S. It is a possibility, but Americans face a greater threat of death from lightning than from ISUS. So I think again we are panicking, though the hyping of the ISIS threat has benefitted the stock of defense industries, and the military can use it to prevent cuts in the military budget. So I fail to get excited about ISUS, which those with eyes and ears recognize we and our friends created after all.

      • Watosh

        It is also claimed that if a country wants peace it should be strong. George Washington said something to that effect. Well since we have been the strongest nation that ever was on the face of this planet, we have known nothing but war and Americans are more fearful than they ever were even during WWII. I have also heard it said that “Those who take up the sword will perish by the sword.” But that was said by some itinerant preacher a could thousand years ago I realize. But nothing will change a war monger’s beliefs,

        • That is also ridiculous. None of those wars have come to our shores, and that’s because of our strength. You fail to see the peace and prosperity that resulted in western civilization after WWII. What can I say, we have a difference of opinion.

          • Watosh

            None of those wars have come to our shores, then why are we so fearful? Is it perhaps as a result of having brought death and destruction to so many countries in the past 60 or 70 years? You speak of peace and prosperity that we enjoy, and I read where the poor are growing every day, some people have two jobs to keep up, and we are the only industrialized western nation in which people lose their homes because they can’t pay their medical bills. Other countries manage this. And how about the peace and prosperity that is enjoyed by the numerous residents of the south side of Chicago? How come today in order to fly, provided my name has not been placed on the no-fly lists that are kept in secret, I have to be exposed to x-rays, and being ordered around by TSA agents that I must meekly comply with, let them steal from my baggage, then let the government listening to all my phone conversations and reading all my e-mails, while our wars are putting us in greater and greater debt, while our banking system prints worthless money. I bought my first new car in 1954 for around $2,000 and my first house, a brand new house for $23,000 Oh we are better off than many, but now we have all the laws on the books to enable a dictator to rule. You don’t seem to recognize that we are headed in the wrong direction.Yes we have a difference of opinion, yours seem to be the “I’m all right, Jack, so …”

            • DE-173

              “None of those wars have come to our shores, then why are we so fearful?”

              By all means, sit tight until some major city sits charred and smoldering.

          • DE-173

            Most of what Watosh writes is ridiculous.

      • Oh please. I was not talking about infinite time. I was talking about wars addressing the issues of their immediate day. And to be clear, not all wars solve issues, that is true. But many do.

      • Chris Cloutier

        The Civil War was fought to preserve the integrity of the American nation, not to end slavery. That was a byproduct of the war.

  • mollysdad

    The way to undermine Islam is the way Robert Spencer did it in “Did Muhammad Exist?”

    It is not disputed that Caliph Abd al-Malik (reigned 685-705) and all his successors in the Caliphate were Muslims and that the Arab Empire was confessionally Islamic by the end of his reign.

    It is not disputed that Abdullah az-Zubair led a rebellion against the Caliph in 685 and controlled Iran, Iraq and Arabia for a time, and that he issued coins bearing the appellation of Muhammad as the messenger of God.

    There is no evidence to enable any reasonable person to find that Islam had any status as a public religion anywhere and at any time before the year 685.

    Therefore, Muhammad either did not exist, or if he did, he cannot have been the political and military leader the ahadith and Sira say he was.

    • St JD George

      Thanks for sharing. I’m only beginning to understand this culture. I will look for this when I get a chance.

      • mollysdad

        The point of this is that, even if Muslims are invincibly ignorant of the truth of the Gospel, they aren’t invincibly ignorant of the fact that their religious profession is blasphemous.

        • St JD George

          Your applying rational thinking, stop already. As I said, a lot of people still faint when they see Billy Boy and he had a sexual affair with someone old enough to be his daughter and defiled the oval office. I guess I’m hopeful, but I’m realistic that we’ll ever turn either group around in their thinking – both worship graven idols.

    • Mike

      If I remember correctely Robert Spencer works for the “Horowitz foundation”. Real unbiased source.

      • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

        Oh, man, I got YOUR number. I am a Jewish convert to traditional Catholicism and I can SMELL your type a mile away. One thing to remember, religious Jews and conservative supporters of Israel are BLOOD ENEMIES of so-called ‘progressive’ Jews who HATE Israel and worship abortion, homosexuality and social disintegration in the name of freedom. I have worked out an easy formula. Those who lump ‘both kind of Jews together’ are simply ‘Jew-Haters’ because putting these together is ABSURD and as Von Hildebrand said, antisemitism is like slapping Our Lord’s mother in the face.

        • Kilpatrick wants muslims dead

          The state of Israel is evil. It’s military murders children for sport. It’s intelligence agency did 911.

          • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

            Forgot your meds this morning?

          • St JD George

            Is it a new sport for Hamas to drive cars over babies and into a crowd of people for fun? Go away, you are annoying.
            http://www.youngcons.com/terrorist-runs-over-american-baby-in-israel-obamas-response-is-beyond-horrible/

            • Mike

              That’s pure propaganda.

              Just look at the death tolls in the Isreal/Palistine conflict. A few homeade rockets do not compare to Isreals massacres of villages, theft of land and resources, murder of women and children, use of illegal chemical weapons ect.

              Iseral is obviously the agreessor. If any other country did a tenth of what Israel did they would have sanctions slapped on them and invaded by every Western nation. Why is there a double standard?

              Also do pro-Zionist Christians at all care about the fate of the many Christians in the occupied territories?

              • St JD George

                Sure do. I also care about the many more being persecuted and killed in Muslim countries. It’s insane to me that people blame Israel for her fate, but it is a big world and it takes lots to fill it.

                • Mike

                  That’s because Israel and the United States fund the Islamic terrorists in order to destroy their nationalist enimies that are proctectors of Christians. If we are fighting “Islamic Terroisim”, then why have we overthrown stalwarts against muslim terroisim such as Hussein and Ghadiffi, with Assad and Iran next on the list? Wasn’t “ISIS” the “moderate” rebels that we wre supporting a year ago in an attempt to overthrow Assad? Wasnt it “Al Queda” that we were collabrating with order to take down Ghadiffi?

                  We are conducting the expansionist policy of Israel with no concern for the fate of Christains or Muslims.

                  • St JD George

                    That does fit the narrative of why we are barely on speaking terms with Israel and quick to criticize while ignoring the savagery of Hamas.

        • DE-173

          “I can SMELL your type a mile away. ”

          It’s same odor that hung over Auschwitz.

        • Mike

          Where did I say I hated modern day Jews because of their race? I think that the Talmud has some very questionable passages. I think the goverment of Israel is a terroist nation that is one of the worst violators of human rights in the world.  I think the Jewish lobby in America is way too powerful. I don’t think America should support Israel with tax payer dollars, continue to be involved in the Middle east, fight WWIII, destroy the planet and kill millions to defend Israel. Nor do I think the people living in Israel have any proof that they are the direct blood decendents of Abraham, and it is in fact highly unlikely as most Israelis are of Eastern European decent. Nor does it matter to me as a Catholic who the blood decendents of Abraham are, because not only is it impossible to prove (the priestly records were destroyed after the destruction of the second temple) but because the church has always correctly taught that Christians  are the seed of Abraham and that the new covenant replaces the old. (they won’t touch this one with a ten foot pole now out of fear of the Jewish supremacist thought police) Jesus Christ himself denounced the Pharisees for this very reason, because they thought they were saved on the basis of their blood.  Once we can get past the Dispensationalist heresy made famous by the Scofield bible and false prophet warmongering tevangelists, we will see Israel for what it is, a racist, apartheid state that is guilty of countless human rights violations that is no fulfillment of biblical prophecy and shouldn’t be supported by anyone. 

          With that said, I have no ill towards the common Israeli citizen or the average person who goes to temple, and do not blame them for the actions of their criminal government, just like the endless crimes of the US govt does not reflect the will of the American people.  I think the end of the apartheid state and democratic elections in Palestine is the solution.  Jews and Arabs lived in relative peace before the Soviet coup of 1948, and there is no reason it can’t happen again.  I also think the idea of the Jewish state to be moved is something to be looked into. 

          But to say that I am “anti-Semitic” because of my opinions of the Israel government, and because am suspicious of Jewish theology is like saying that someone who opposed the government of the Soviet Union hates Russians because of their race.  Its like saying that Robert Spencer hates Arabs because of their blood since he criticizes Islamic theology. And I have every right to be suspicious of claims about Islam from a guy who works for the “Horowitz foundation”, just like anyone else has the right to take claims about Jews from a white supremacist organization with a grain of salt.  

          • St JD George

            If you just said that there are horrors on both sides committed in war I would have stayed with you. Like in elections, war is an imperfect choice but sometimes necessary and the lesser evil. For you to be an apologist of Hamas and the muslin brotherhood is beyond despicable. Pure evil.

        • sarah
        • Alex

          “antisemitism is like slapping Our Lord’s mother in the face.”

          What a beautiful quote. Never thought about it, but since Judaism is matrilineal, and Mary is our mom, we are Jewish in a sense as well.

          Bless you.

      • DE-173

        Who do you work for?
        Or have you successfully pursued a Social Security disability claim?

  • Rob

    Napoleon hated all religions. He was a Godless tyrant for whom human life was worthless. And so was Hitler, and Lenin, and Stalin, and Mao, and so is Obama. To allow ISIS to slaughter so many innocent people and not to rain on them all the might of the western military power is a curse the west will bear for millennia to come. You can call ISLAM whatever you want: ideology, sect, religion, but it something much bigger, much stronger, much more sinister and cunning than you might think. There is no reasoning with ISLAM, there is no propaganda that will ever exterminate this diabolical mentality. No amount of bombing and shooting will ever stop this monster. When they see you pointing a gun at them, they will fall to their knees, they will beg you through their tears to spear their lives, and when you close your eyes to rest, they will slit your through in cold blood, spit at you, and disappear in the dark. Our weekest point is our humanity. We value all life and by now we know that wars are contrary to our psyche. Islam has stoped evolving the moment it was conceived. Muslim mentality, although embracing western lifestyle and toys, still lives and behaves like it is 700 AD. Nothing has changed except their weapons. To win completely, Islam must be exterminated from the face of the Earth. Any other attempt is a waste of time, lives, and resources.

    • DE-173

      When I used to hear “Obama is a Muslim”. I always figured that wasn’t possible, he had the rhetoric of an autotheist.

      Lately, I’m not so sure. He did take the time away from his grueling golf and campaign schedules to add another Muslim holiday to the WH calendar.

      • St JD George

        You do remember where he was this past Easter don’t you, a mosque in Indonesia on the most holy day in the Christian church. I guess the call to prayer he heard wasn’t to celebrate the resurrection of Christ. Could have done nothing, could have sought out a church, made a choice.

        • DE-173

          Yes. It was telling to me.

          Of course he did say the most beautiful sound in the world is the call of the muzzein, maybe it was just irresistable.

          • St JD George

            I’m tempted to write more, but digital words live forever at the “hive”. How funny to start with “bumble”. Krauthammer was 100% correct in his pathological diagnosis, and he should know as a Psychiatrist.
            https://nsa.gov1.info/utah-data-center/index.html

            • DE-173

              I’m sure just by coming here I’ve been digitally tattooed.

              • St JD George

                That thought has actually never crossed my mind (ha).

          • Chris Cloutier

            And he said America isn’t a christian country!

      • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

        “As a student at Harvard Law School, then-bachelor Barack Obama’s practice of wearing a gold band on his wedding-ring finger puzzled his colleagues. Now, newly published photographs of Obama from the 1980s show that the ring Obama wore on his wedding-ring finger as an unmarried student is the same ring Michelle Robinson put on his finger at the couple’s wedding ceremony in 1992. Moreover, according to Arabic-language and Islamic experts, the ring Obama has been wearing for more than 30 years is adorned with the first part of the Islamic declaration of faith, the Shahada: “There is no god except Allah.” “

    • Mike

      Imagine the reactiion if anyone ever said this about the Jews……

      The reality is thst Muslims, Christians and Jews have all committed crimes against humanity throught their history. All three their bad apples, but most of the people who practice these faiths are good.

      I believe that the New testament is by far the most humane of the holy books, but every major scripture in the Abrahamic tradition has passages that can be taken out of context. The Talmud is worse then the as the Quran, as it says that Jesus is rotting in excrement and the Virgin Mary was a whore, and that all Christians should be killed. The Quran at least honors Jesus and his mother.

      The biggest murderers in modern history are the satanists who run our international financial system, who funded the Bolshevik extermination of 66 million Christians, both world wars, the Imperalisim of the last half century, and support population control measures around the world. These people run our goverment.

      If you think this is consparicy theroy, read Revalation 18. Who do you think the whore of baybolon is?

      • DE-173

        The whore of babylon may be people with abacuses for souls; but it assuredly includes those who dabble in the dark arts of relativism and syncretism such as yourself.

      • sarah
    • dougpruner

      From Napoleon to Obama, with stops at Hitler and Lenin. Quite a journey. 🙂
      BTW Napoleon punished his troops for molesting civilians and their property on his way to Italy.

  • Faustina11

    I would like to see Muslims convert to Christianity, for which I pray every day.

  • Mike

    The height of hyprocricy is the fact that Christians who claim to be against the culture of death in America want nothing more then to export it to Muslim countries, and they think that the Muslims are “savages” for understandably being resistant.

    • DE-173 is a Zionist liar

      Excellent, Mike. You are being attacked by the brainwashed useful idiots who mindlessly follow the Israeli propagadist Kilpatrick. Keep up the truth telling..

      • DE-173

        Oh look, Mike can sign in under multiple ID’s.

  • The psychological defeat required to win this war in the long term must be no less than the defeat of Islam itself as a religious force. It must go the way of the Greek and Roman gods, an historical tragedy of biblical proportions but one that must be firmly placed in history, in the past with no possibility of being taken seriously again. This is the great task of the West, if we want to avoid endless jihadist motivated terror and creeping sharia.

  • Joe Bloggs

    11 Signs of a False Flag
    Dees Illustration Brandon Turbeville
    Activist Post

    Throughout history, versions of the false flag attack have been used successfully by governments in order to direct the force of the people toward whatever end the ruling class may be seeking. At times, that end may be war, or it may be the curtailing of domestic civil liberties and basic human rights. In others, it is an economic agenda.

    Indeed, false flags are themselves capable of taking on a wide variety of forms – domestic or foreign, small or large, economic or political, and many other designations that can often blur into one another. Each may serve a specific purpose and each may be adjusted and tailored for that specific purpose as societal conditions require.

    For instance, the chemical weapons attack which took place inside Syria in August, 2013 serve as an example of a foreign false flag designed to whip up American fervor for war, on the platform of Responsibility to Protect similar to the Gulf of Tonkin.

    Domestically speaking, a large-scale false flag such as 9/11, can be used to whip up both a massive public support for war and a popular willingness to surrender civil liberties, constitutional procedure, and constitutional/human rights. Economic false flags may take the form of manufactured “government shutdowns” or “government defaults” designed to create a demand for austerity or other pro-Wall Street solutions. Lastly, smaller-scale domestic false flags such as Sandy Hook or Aurora, often involve the implementation of gun-control measures or a greater police state.

    There are, of course, many different versions of false flag attacks and none fit into a tightly crafted classification beyond the generalized term “false flag.” As stated above, some false flags may indeed embrace an element of each of the different versions listed previously both in terms of methodology and purpose.

    With that in mind, it is also true that, while massive false flag attacks are always a possibility, it has been the small-scale false flags coming in the form of “shooters” (most often of the “lone gunmen” variety), that have been used most effectively by the ruling class and its mouthpiece media outlets in recent years. While the scale of the attacks have diminished, their frequency has rapidly increased.

    However, due to a growing competent alternative media and researching community, as fast as the false flag attacks are launched, a volley of deconstructions of the official narratives are being provided. While many criticisms of the official version of events are wildly incredible, bordering on paranoia and impossibility, there are capable outlets and researchers who are able to expose the false flag for what it is. Indeed, it is for this reason that the false flag has suffered serious setbacks in terms of its effectiveness as of late and why it continues to do so.

    Because the false flag attack is designed to instill fear, panic, and a guided response from the general public, it is important to deconstruct the narrative of that attack as it is presented. However, we cannot simply be consumed by attempting to expose and deconstruct every false flag attack that comes our way. We cannot ignore the greater issues, the winnable battles, and the demands we must be making simply to expose each and every false flag. We cannot ignore the forest fire to extinguish the occasional burning bush. The false flag, after all, is only the symptom of the disease.

    For that reason, it is important to enable the general public to recognize the false flag itself, not simply the questionable elements of a particular false flag which will soon be overtaken by a new one. We must train both ourselves and the public to recognize the signs of the false flag when it happens and thus render the attack neutral.

    The following is a list of some of the most common elements of the false flag attack which should immediately be looked at in the event of some other incident that pulls at the heartstrings and emotions of the general public.

    1. High Profile Event: The first question to ask would be “Is this a high profile incident?” The answer, of course, is fairly obvious. If an attack takes place at the World Trade Center complex causing the buildings to explode and collapse, or if it takes place at the White House, or Pentagon, it is clearly high profile. Thus, the location can be factored in. In other circumstances, however, the act itself may be the major factor such as the case in Sandy Hook Elementary School, a nationally unimportant location but a horrific act that made national news nonetheless. The most important factor, of course, is media attention. Regardless of location or the act, if the media picks up the story and runs it simultaneously on all major mainstream channels, the incident can be considered a “high profile event.”

    2. Changing Stories: In informed researching circles, it is well-known that the information that comes out shortly after the event is usually the most reliable. This is not to discount the existence of confusion related to panicked reports coming from eyewitnesses and the like. However, the information coming out early on has not yet been subjected to the top-down media revision that will inevitably take place as the story becomes molded to fit the narrative pushed by the individuals who either directed the attack at the higher levels or at least have connections with those who are able to control the manner in which various media outlets report the event.

    For instance, in times of false flag attacks, the initial reports may point to 5 gunmen. Very shortly after, reports may only mention two. Only a few hours after the attack, however, all references to more than one gunmen are removed entirely, with only the “lone gunman” story remaining. Any other mention of additional gunmen after this point is ridiculed as “conspiracy theory.”

    3. Simultaneous Drills: One hallmark of the false flag operation is the running of drills shortly before or during the actual attack. Many times, these drills will involve the actual sequence of events that takes place during the real life attack . These drills have been present on large scale false flags such as 9/11 as well as smaller scale attacks like the Aurora shooting.

    For instance, as Webster Tarpley documents in his book 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made In USA, at least 46 drills were underway in the months leading up to 9/11 and on the morning of the attack. These 46 drills were all directly related to the events which took place on 9/11 in some way or other.[1] Likewise, the 7/7 bombings in London were running drills of exactly the same scenario that was occurring at exactly the same times and locations.

    Although one reason may take precedence over the other depending on the nature and purpose of the operation drills are used by false flag operators for at least two reasons. One such purpose is the creation of intentional confusion if the drill is taking place during the actual attack. The other, more effective aspect, however, is using the drill as a cloak to plan the attack or even “go live” when it comes time to launch the event. Even more so, it gives the individuals who are involved in the planning of the event an element of cover, especially with the military/intelligence agency’s tight chain of command structure and need-to-know basis. If a loyal military officer or intelligence agent stumbles upon the planning of the attack, that individual can always be told that what he has witnessed is nothing more than the planning of a training exercise. This deniability continues all the way through to the actual “going live” of the drill. After the completion of the false flag attack, Coincidence Theory is used to explain away the tragic results.[2]

    4. Cui Bono? The most important question to ask immediately after any high profile incident is “cui bono?” or “Who benefits?” If one is able to see a clear benefit to any government, corporation, or bank, then the observer becomes capable of seeing through the false flag attack immediately. Many of these questions can be answered by taking a closer look at the behavior of these organizations prior to the attack and shortly thereafter.[3]

    For instance, the presence of legislation which would stand little chance of being passed before the attack but which is quickly passed (or at least heavily pushed) afterwards is one clue that the conveniently timed attack was actually a false flag. Patriot Act style legislation was actually written before 9/11 but stood little chance of passing in Congress due to the political climate in the United States at the time. After 9/11, however, the Patriot Act was fast-tracked through both Houses of Congress with virtually no debate and with the blessing of the American people.

    Returning to 9/11, it is a fact that a number of individuals who were in positions of power within the US government during the time the attack occurred had desperately wanted to invade several Middle Eastern countries.[4] After the attacks, a war psychosis gripped the ruling class of the United States and the American public followed right along.

    After the Underwear Bombing, we saw the rollout of the TSA full-body scanners, a technology which would not have been readily accepted prior to the incident and subsequent propaganda campaign. However, the scanners had been purchased one year earlier by a firm owned by Michael Chertoff, the former head of Homeland Security.

    Likewise, in terms of the LAX shooting, TSA purchased 3.5 million dollars worth of ammunition in August. Yet, in August, TSA was not an armed agency. After the LAX shooting, however, talk has turned to arming the agency, thus indicating possible foreknowledge on the part of someone higher up in the governmental structure.

    Of course, the same can be said for the explosion of crazed lone-gunman shooting sprees that took place all across the United States amid propaganda pushes for increased gun control measures.

    5. Unanswered Questions: Another hallmark of the false flag operation is relatively obvious – the presence of unanswered questions regarding the details of the attack, the perpetrators, the motive and so on. Although the media narrative that takes shape soon after the attack will ignore these questions, they will inevitably remain if observers are able to think for themselves and focus only on the information. An example of such questions would be Building 7 on 9/11 or the questions of additional shooters at Aurora and Sandy Hook.

    6. Case is quickly closed: Once an acceptable patsy and cover story is chosen by the media, all other opinions and questions are refused air time. Nothing that even slightly contradicts the official story is acknowledged as legitimate. Once this happens, the patsy, if still alive (in rare circumstances) is charged, prosecuted, and convicted in a largely secret or shadowy proceeding. In most cases, the suspect is killed in the process or shortly after the fact thus negating any first hand contradiction of the official narrative. Either way, the case is closed very soon after the event.

    7. Suspects’ Connection to CIA, FBI, or Other Intelligence Agencies: One key aspect suggesting a false flag that should be looked for soon after the attack is any possible connection the suspect or group of suspects may have had with intelligence agencies. A connection to any one of these organizations and institutions may go some length in explaining how the attack was coordinated, the motivation of the perpetrators, the actual involvement (or not) of the suspects, and who actually directed the operation. For instance, on 9/11, many of the alleged hijackers had previously had close contact with the FBI, CIA, and other high-level intelligence agencies (both home and abroad).[5] Likewise, the Tsarnaev brothers who have been accused of masterminding and carrying out the Boston Bombing had ties to the FBI before the attack.

    In many instances, connections to certain military agencies and communities should serve as the same red flag as connections to intelligence agencies since these institutions have largely been blended together.

    8. Convenient Scapegoat: One clue leading an informed observer to suspect a false flag attack is the existence of the convenient scapegoat. Any false flag operation will have a carefully crafted narrative complete with a group of individuals set up for demonization. The OKC bombing had McVeigh and thus, “right-wing extremists” and “militias.” On 9/11, the group was Muslims. In many of the domestic shooting sprees, the demonization was set for gun owners. With the recent LAX shooting, the “perpetrator” was an “anti-government conspiracy theorist.” In the instance of the false flag, a readily identified pasty will exhibit all or most of the aspects of the group and social demographic set to be demonized.

    9. Media Promotes A Narrative Against Scapegoat Groups and/or An Agenda To Take Liberties: One clue suggesting a false flag is that, immediately after the attack and after the perpetrators have been “identified” by “officials” and the media, corporate media outlets begin not only demonizing the demographic group to which the “perpetrator” belongs, but begins promoting “solutions” in order to prevent such an attack from ever happening again. This narrative will always involve the erosion of liberties, the greater implementation of a police state, a specific economic policy, or a march to war.

    Simply put, the media promotes the PROBLEM, allows for and guides the REACTION, and then provides the pre-determined SOLUTION.

    10. Government Begins to “Take Action” Against the Scapegoat or Moves Along the Lines of the Media Narrative: After a healthy dose of propaganda from mainstream media outlets regurgitating the terror of the attack, the perpetrator, and the police state solutions, the Government then begins to take action. Political speeches are given in order to capitalize on the fear and anger felt by the public and in order to reinforce the idea that government is there to act as protector. Political solutions are then offered as bills, executive orders, or political mandates whether it is the curtailment of the 4th Amendment, gun control, or military strikes on a foreign country.

    11. Clues in pop media: Pop media clues, more accurately described as predictive programming, is more easily identified in hindsight. This often involves the portrayal of the very incident occurring in a movie or television show. In other instances, it may involve the conspicuous or even inconspicuous placement of random details of the attack into movies and television. For instance, The Lone Gunman, a short-lived spinoff of the X-Files carried a storyline in which a passenger plane was hijacked via remote control and was being flown into the World Trade Center towers. In The Dark Knight Rises, a very curious reference was made to Sandy Hook with a map of Newtown, Connecticut on the wall.

    Conclusion

    Although it is extremely important to educate the general public as to the nature and purpose of false flags, education cannot be a goal in and of itself. The public not only needs to know the truth surrounding specific false flag events as they appear, they need to understand the methodology of identifying them on their own and in real time.

    Creating a culture in which the general public is able to recognize the false flag attack as it is happening, without the need for a massive push by alternative media sources, researchers, or activists, is the first step in not only rendering the tactic useless, but in corralling the force of the people toward true action or, at the very least, creating a culture in which that force cannot be corralled by the ruling class.

    While false flag attacks must be addressed, we must not allow ourselves to be so easily diverted off a path of political action, mass mobilization, and the making of real attainable demands.

    • Mike

      It’s amazing that people believe that the Nazis, Communists ect could commit such atrocities, but never our own government.
      .

  • Alexander

    I just recently wrote to the CIA in regards to combat ISIS and other islam groups. In my opinion you have to plant doubts about their belief system. Not with bombs, but with serious theological confrontation. The koran is full of falls statements and contradiction. If we can show them that their believe has no foundation, that it is based on a false understanding of God, then I think the entire problem with Islam will be gone. Islam will fall apart. How to to it? Newspaper articles in Arab countries, questioning islam teaching and pointing out flaws in their theology, Radio shows, internet massages etc. We must be ready to battle with them on the Truth level about God. Great read Robert Spencer’s book “Not peace but a sword”

  • Tony

    The Shah of Iran is looking better and better as time goes on.

    A couple of things: “Hamas,” in Hebrew, means “violence.” I believe it means the same thing in Arabic. I think we should simply translate it as such: “The Gaza Strip, administered by Violence,” “A representative of Violence, speaking to the press,” “Some members of Violence claim,” and so forth.

    I am uneasily non-committal on the subject of war in the Middle East. What I do believe is that you can’t have half measures. They are the worst of all the alternatives. The single thing that would administer the humiliating defeat that would crush Islamic ideology would be to seize Mecca. Whether it is worth it, I don’t know. For how long we will possess sufficient manhood to accomplish it, if indeed it is a legitimate thing to do, I don’t know. But it would do the trick.

    • DE-173

      Unfortunately Tony, the effete and pusillanimous xenophiles will never allow it to happen; they will instead weaken our moral superstructure and make the capture of London or Rome by a new Caliph more likely that what you have surmised as effectual.

  • kendallpeak

    For folks in the west, the idea of labeling another religion as inheritantly evil and bad goes against our grain. We don’t want to do so. But facts are facts. Islam teaches the oppression of others, always has and always will. As this article points out, the Muslims are peaceful when they feel militarily inferior. Well, who isn’t? Of course they are. The only solution to the Islam problem is to repress this evil ideology with the same vigor as we oppress Nazism, the KKK, etc…Countries that are dominated by it should be conquered, and those who wish to adhere to it should be legally shunned and discriminated against with the same vigor as we would those wearing swastikas. As repugnant as this may seem to most of us, it is the only way to fight against the true evil that this distorted ideology represents.

  • sarah@gmail.com
  • sarah

    Staged Terror: Two headlines in the Zionist-controlled National Post sum up the Orwellian nature of this week’s phony “wave of terror” in Canada.

    One headline read: “Conservatives’ new anti-terror laws likely to mirror ‘immensely controversial’ U.K. legislation.”[1]

    The other said: “Conservatives mulling legislation making it illegal to condone terrorist acts online.”[2]

    According
    to the articles, Harper and his deranged neocon colleagues are looking
    to use the conspicuously timed shooting in Ottawa as an excuse to
    strengthen the State’s surveillance and police powers.

    One
    article reported: “The Conservatives are understood to be considering
    new legislation that would make it an offence to condone terrorist acts
    online. … Sources suggest the government is likely to bring in new hate
    speech legislation that would make it illegal to claim terrorist acts
    are justified online. The Prime Minister told the House of Commons on
    Thursday that Canada’s law and policing powers need to be strengthened
    in the areas of surveillance, detention and arrest. He said work is
    already under way to provide law enforcement agencies with ‘additional
    tools’ and that work will now be expedited.”

    The National Post
    revealed that Harper’s draconian proposed edicts were prepared in
    advance: “The Conservative MP said the new legislation was crafted
    before this week’s events and is not ‘trauma tainted.’” This is
    reminiscent of America’s freedom-obliterating “Patriot Act” which was
    written well in advance of 9/11, and railroaded through Congress a week
    after the synthetic disaster.

    None
    of this is the least bit surprising and was totally predictable. My
    Non-Aligned Media colleague Joshua Blakeney and I had repeatedly warned
    readers over the past few weeks that the Canadian government was about
    to stage an event to justify joining America’s sham crusade against ISIS
    in Iraq and Syria and to silence dissidents at home.

    Everything came to pass as predicted.

    In an October 18 article entitled “Terror-scaremongering designed to erode freedoms, stamp out dissent” I wrote:

    “As
    expected, the recent fabricated ISIS terror scare that swept the
    headlines of Canada’s Zionist-owned media is being used by the neocon
    regime in Ottawa to give Canada’s spy agency CSIS more sweeping powers
    to spy on citizens and protect the identities of informants.

    “The
    Canadian government’s informants are more than likely responsible for
    spurring or otherwise concocting the very ‘terror’ plots CSIS claims to
    have foiled — just like its counterpart in the US has been caught doing
    time and time again. … Problem, reaction, solution — the Machiavellian
    methodology never fails.

    “…
    Like Canada, Australia and Britain are endeavoring to empower their
    spook agencies as well as stiffen their fraudulent “anti-terror” laws in
    the face of phony ISIS ‘terror plots’ that bear all the hallmarks of
    intelligence psyops. That is what the ISIS sham threat is all about —
    creating a bogus pretext so our governments can strip us of our
    liberties and stamp out dissent.”[3]

    The
    Canadian government and media had been hyping the ISIS ‘terror threat’
    for some time, preconditioning the public to accept the inevitability of
    an attack on home soil. The true masterminds of the Ottawa attack —
    where one Canadian reservist solider was killed — designed it as a mind
    control mechanism to steer public opinion in favour of the US-led
    coalition against ISIS which Harper signed on to several weeks ago.
    Harper gave a laughable emotive speech on the day of the shooting,
    mimicking President George W. Bush’s bombastic rhetoric right after 9/11
    (“they hate us for our freedoms,” “this is an attack on our values,”
    etc.) If anybody hates us for our freedoms it is our own government
    which is bending over backwards as I write this to extinguish what
    pittance of freedom we have left.

    The
    government’s “lone gunman” narrative is all too familiar and
    prototypical of psychological warfare operations of this nature.
    Evidence has emerged indicating that US and Canadian intelligence had
    been monitoring both the Ottawa shooting suspect and the Quebec man who
    allegedly ran over two Canadian soldiers with his car on October 20 for
    quite some time.[4]

    Another
    textbook indication of the manufactured nature of the events this week
    was revealed by Adrienne Arsenault of CBC who reported that the Canadian
    authorities had been running war games exercises simulating ISIS
    attacks in Quebec, “another city” and the specter of ISIS militants of
    Canadian origin returning to Canada.

    Far from being caught by surprise by this week’s dubious attacks, Arsenault told CBC anchor Peter Mansbridge that,

    “[Canadian
    authorities] may have been surprised by the actual incidents but not by
    the concepts of them. Within the last month we know that the CSIS, the
    RCMP and the National Security Task Force … ran a scenario that’s akin
    to a war games exercise if you will where they actually imagined
    literally an attack in Quebec, followed by an attack in another city,
    followed by a tip that that ‘hey some foreign fighters are coming back
    from Syria.’ So they were imagining a worst case scenario. We’re seeing
    elements of that happening right now. … [Canadian authorities] may talk
    today in terms of being surprised but we know that this precise scenario
    has been keeping them up at night for awhile.”[5]

    This
    follows a pattern of identical occurrences during the 9/11 and 7/7
    attacks in New York and London where American and British authorities
    had been running war games drills mirroring the actual events that
    unfolded later in the day. The “drills” seem to be test-runs for the
    actual attacks.

    Earlier
    this year Edward Snowden revealed that Canadian intelligence was
    heavily involved in the “Five Eyes” spy apparatus which is neck-deep in
    illegal espionage activities against Canadians. It is nonsense to
    suggest our intelligence agencies weren’t aware of what was coming.

    This
    is the standard modus operandi of Western intelligence agencies who
    have perpetually used informants to incite and provocateur ‘terror
    incidents’ that are utilized by the State to sanction massive military
    and intelligence budgets and unlimited powers to spy on the citizenry.
    Niall Bradley of Signs of the Times explained that the infamous ‘Toronto
    18’ terror cell that was comprised of 18 hapless adolescents who were
    accused and convicted of conspiring to commit a wave of terror across
    Canada in 2006 was entirely led, guided and “handled” by a career CSIS
    operative named Mubin Shaikh. Without Shaikh there would have been no
    ‘Toronto 18’.[6]

    Whatever
    the truth is about the Ottawa shooting, the Harper regime and its
    Zionist puppet masters are the only ones who stand to gain from it. The
    timing of it is far too convenient for Harper who has used it to swing
    public opinion behind his foolhardy decision to prostitute Canada’s
    military for Obama’s fraudulent campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
    Everybody in the know understands that ISIS — much like its Orwellian
    predecessor al-Qaeda — is the CIA’s Frankenstein monster, armed,
    trained, funded and deployed by Western and Israeli secret services.
    ISIS is the West and the West is ISIS. So whatever terrorism is blamed
    on ISIS, our governments ultimately stand behind it.

  • Sarah

    Israel kills Americans with impunity.

    The Israelis have killed another young American.

    Like 18-year-old Furkan Dogan, who was murdered aboard the Mavi Marmara, and 23-year-old Rachel Corrie, who was deliberately crushed beneath an Israeli bulldozer, the latest victim – 14-year-old Orwa Hammad – was martyred trying to stop the genocide in Occupied Palestine.

    Unlike the 64,937 US soldiers who died useless and pointless deaths in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, these three brave young people gave their lives for a just and urgent cause. Wherever human beings care about justice, the young American heroes will be remembered. Yet the US mainstream media, which has been stealthily infiltrated by Zionists to the point that it is now a propaganda instrument of the Israeli government, works overtime to cover up the heinous murder of young Americans by Zionist occupation forces.

    If the Russian government or the Iranian government or the Chinese government or the Cuban government or the North Korean government were slaughtering young Americans, the corporate media would sound the alarm. A vast outcry would ensue. Politicians would climb soapboxes to thunder denunciations of such crimes against humanity. Sanctions would be imposed. The president might even bomb the offending state.

    But when the genocidal Israeli government brutally targets American teenagers, the media tries to make sure that nobody cares. And the bought-and-paid-for politicians – roughly half of whose “campaign money” (bribes) comes from Zionists – support the Israeli government while it murders Americans. It is those craven politicians, not the brave teenagers, who should be shot: By US military firing squads as the penalty for treason. The vast majority of federal office holders in the US richly deserve such a fate.

    The US mainstream news of Orwa Hammad’s death featured a photo of Palestinians throwing stones above the caption, “Palestinians clash with security forces.” By telling us it is “Palestinians” who are doing the “clashing,” the Zionist propagandists are trying to make the victims look like aggressors.

    The mainstream stories gave prominence to the IDF’s lying rationale for the killing. According to the AFP-Yahoo story:

    “An army spokeswoman said troops posted at the village of Silwad to protect a major road widely used by Jewish settlers in the occupied territory spotted a person about to hurl a petrol bomb. ‘The forces fired immediately to neutralise the danger… and confirmed a hit,’ she said.”

    The AFP-Yahoo story led with the IDF’s lies – and devoted 74 words to them. Then it devoted only 28 words to a euphemistic description of the truth, saying that according to Palestinians Hammad “was shot during a stone-throwing protest against troops, a regular occurrence at Silwad, near Ofra settlement.”

    In his article “Gaza Diary,” leading American journalist Chris Hedges – who was expelled from mainstream journalism for telling the truth about the genocide in Palestine – tells us what really happens in such cases: He described how Israeli soldiers shoot Palestinian children for sport. Hedges personally witnessed Israeli soldiers barking out obscene insults over loudspeakers to provoke children into throwing rocks at them. Then the soldiers murdered the children with sniper fire to the vitals.

    Hedges writes:

    “Yesterday at this spot the Israelis shot eight young men, six of whom were under the age of eighteen. One was twelve. This afternoon they kill an eleven-year-old boy, Ali Murad, and seriously wound four more, three of whom are under eighteen. Children have been shot in other conflicts I have covered — death squads gunned them down in El Salvador and Guatemala, mothers with infants were lined up and massacred in Algeria, and Serb snipers put children in their sights and watched them crumple onto the pavement in Sarajevo — but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport.”

    Though he shared in a 2002 Pulitzer Prize as a New York Times journalist, Hedges was forced out in 2003 because he insisted on telling the truth.

    Several years ago British Medical Journal documented more than 600 Israeli sniper-murders of children like the ones Hedges witnessed. The horrible truth is that Israeli soldiers routinely hunt Palestinian children as a sick form of recreation. And now they are hunting American teenagers as well.

    The Israeli soldiers routinely make up lies, like the recent fantasy about “petrol bombs,” to cover their tracks. They are never prosecuted for their deliberate sport-shooting of helpless, unarmed children.

    Zionist propagandists in the US insist that those calling attention to Israel’s systematic policy of sport-shooting children are perpetrating a “blood libel.” But truth is an absolute defense against the charge of libel. And the truth about Israel’s policy of killing children for fun has been abundantly documented.

    Israel is a nation of child-killers. That is no libel. It is the simple truth.

    American taxpayers are handing the child-killers in the Israeli military $8.5 million every day. And that is just direct military aid. The real total is far higher. According to the Christian Science Monitor, Israel’s actual drain on the US treasury totals in the trillions. If we add the cost of the 9/11 wars for Israel, and the associated costs of the 9/11 Zionist coup d’état and the police state it inaugurated, the Israeli vampire has drained Americans’ fiscal lifeblood to the tune of double-digit trillions of dollars – a devastating and possibly mortal blow to the US economy.

    If Israel had never existed, Americans would be almost unimaginably more prosperous – and more free – than they are today.

    And as recompense for America’s bankrupting itself for Israel, the Zionists slaughter American kids.

    Anyone who doesn’t believe that the Israeli government is perfectly happy to mass-murder helpless Americans should investigate the USS Liberty incident of 1967… and read Christopher Bollyn’s book “Solving 9/11” alongside Alan Sabrosky’s interviews about who really blew up the World Trade Center.

    The name of the website “If Americans Knew” is an apt one. If Americans knew what the Zionists have done to them, they would riot in the streets… and hang the last Zionist with the entrails of the last politician.

  • Bob
MENU