If you like this blog

Don't miss Kevin Barrett's radio shows! And visit TruthJihad.com for more...

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Putting a Mosque Next to WTC-7 Is...BLASPHEMY!


Guest column by Rev. Darvis P. Fuddlesnapper, Pastor, Church of Jesus H. Christ Warmonger

When I first heard that them thar Islamics wanted to put up a mosque next to that big hole where the Twin Towers use to be, it made me so mad I almost split my britches. And I preached me a sermon calling on the Almighty to strike down the mayor and the Islamics and all the rest of the blasphemers.

But after church, one of them nice Christian ladies who graces the front pew every Sunday (I call her "Our Lady of the Cleavage" but please don't mention that to my wife Ethel) told me the mosque site is actually a lot closer to World Trade Center Building 7 than it is to the hole where the Towers used to be.

Holy tarnation! A mosque next to Building 7!

You know what that means, don't you? That means those pesky Islamicals are THANKING ALLAH for the MIRACULOUS DESTRUCTION OF BUILDING 7!

Those darn Muslimists know full well that Building 7 was never hit by a plane, and only had modest fires on a couple of floors, when suddenly -- WHAM! -- it came straight down at free-fall speed for no particular reason around 5:20 in the afternoon of 9/11. For the Islamics, the destruction of Building 7 was a miracle from Allah! No wonder they're putting up a shrine next door!

What's worse, those Islamics probably think it was Allah who told the BBC that Building 7 was going to collapse. The Muslimists always say "Only Allah knows the future." For them, the BBC's report that Building 7 had collapsed, twenty minutes before it happened, is another miracle.

Are all you good warmongering Christians of America gonna let ALLAH take credit for the miraculous collapse of Building 7, and the BBC's miraculous foreknowledge?  

We've got to stop the Building 7 Mosque. 

Monday, August 30, 2010

Concurrent local AE911Truth press conferences this 9/9/10!

Tuesday, August 31st, 9-10 a.m. Pacific (noon-1 pm Eastern) on http://NoLiesRadio.org, to be archived here a few hours after broadcast...

Guest: David Slesinger of 911Courage.org, organizer of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth concurrent local press conferences set for Friday, September 9th:

Get Started Today
1.  Email us at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it to let us know that you are interested in making the five-minute press conference happen in your area. We need your name, phone number, email, and the exact address of your press conference location.

2.  You don’t have to be an architect or engineer to organize the press conference, although that would be great. We will help you to find a local architect or engineer petition signer to read the statement – if one is available.

3.  Please make extraordinary efforts to get the press to attend your press conference. We will provide a brief Media Alert / Press Advisory a week before the event. You should email/fax/deliver/mail this document to every radio/TV/newspaper in your local area. Start gathering contact information for them now.

4.  Be prepared to receive the final press release from us shortly before the press conference. You will simply be reading it outside the office of your Congressmember and then taking questions – if you feel comfortable doing so.

5.  Be sure to have an AE911Truth vinyl banner, which is available from our store. (You can also download the artwork at no cost and print the banner locally.)

6.  Be sure to have photos and videos taken at your event and email them to us at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . It is best to have an experienced, dedicated person to do this work.

7.  Please also consider assisting us as a regional volunteer to help coordinate this important nationwide project.

More Lies from "Cosmos"

Updated 9/15/2010

Cosmos spent the week before the 9/11/10 anniversary flooding the internet with this attack on me: http://911truthnews.com/a-response-to-kevin-barretts-attacks/

I wrote a response, but decided not to post it (thanks to Carol Brouillet for the good advice) until after the anniversary. Here it is:

More lies from "Cosmos"
A Response to the Latest Cosmos Hit Piece

by Kevin Barrett

Cosmos has been posting vicious lies about me, under various fake names, at his TruthAction blog since 2007. Yet he writes: "I personally had never spoken out against Barrett until very recently..."  I guess if you maintain a "Barrett promoting disinfo" thread at your website for three years, and post vast amounts of defamatory material under fake names, you're not saying anything "personally."

Cosmos claims that I "bizarrely" accused him of being "a 'wrecker' getting him (Barrett) kicked off conference lineups..."  In fact, I never said that Cosmos or anyone else had ever succeeded in getting me kicked off any conference lineup. I simply reported what Ken O'Keefe told me: That some lunatic calling himself "Cosmos" had -- completely out of the blue -- emailed Ken a long series of false and/or misleading attacks on me in an attempt to wreck the Debunking 9/11 conference in London this past July.   Instead of clearly confirming or denying this, Cosmos invents a straw-man distortion of what I actually said, and calls this charge "bizarre" and "venomous."  Yet he has never specifically denied sending the attack email to Ken O'Keefe. Bizarre, venomous...but true!

Cosmos, if you didn't send that (bizarre, venomous) email to Ken O'Keefe, just say so! Then we'll figure out whether you're lying once again, or whether there are two lunatics named "Cosmos" out there stalking me.

Along with his lame attempt to blow smoke over his email to O'Keefe attempting to wreck the London symposium, Cosmos invents another straw-man lie about the issue of his not-so-uncle Mickey. According to Cosmos, I charged him with "hiding the fact that it was only a family friend who was murdered on that day" (not his actual uncle). In fact, I never charged him with HIDING anything. I just pointed out that he has, on several occasions, claimed that he lost his uncle on 9/11, while failing to disclose that the person in question was not his uncle. His repeated references to "Uncle Mickey" have led many of the people who have heard of Cosmos to believe that he is a 9/11 family member.  Within the 9/11 truth community, and in American society in general, "9/11 family member" is a very privileged category. So while Cosmos sometimes does mention that "Uncle Mickey" was not really his uncle, and sometimes doesn't, the upshot is that he has deceptively created the impression that he is a 9/11 family member when in fact he is not.

Here are three recordings of Cosmos referring to "Uncle Mickey" without mentioning that Mickey was not his uncle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV5KBwfmv04 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d7uGdaSM7o
http://www.truthnews.com.au/radio/wordpress/?p=668

Regarding the latter: "In an interview with Hereward Fenton on Truth News Radio Australia last November 11th, 2009, Cosmos repeats the lie that his 'uncle' was murdered. When the interviewer follows up and asks him about his uncle, Cosmos does nothing to disabuse him from being under the impression that it was his blood uncle."    -http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2963

Here is Cosmos's original bio at 9/11 Truth News: "Cosmos is an artist and musician whose uncle was murdered in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001." 

After spewing doubletalk non-denial denials about the "Uncle Mickey" issue, Cosmos finally confesses: "And quite frankly,  if I choose to refer to Mickey in the way that I remember him,  then I will damn well do so. For me to call Mark Rothenberg my 'uncle Mickey' is 100% accurate – that’s who he was. And history will not look kindly on individuals who have attacked those who lost loved ones on 9/11." In other words, by falsely claiming that he lost an uncle on 9/11, Cosmos thinks he can get away with slandering other people and wrecking 9/11 truth events without anybody saying boo. In Cosmos's world, family members -- especially fake ones -- are off-limits to criticism, no matter what they do. 


* * *


Original post:


re: "Is Cosmos Living Out a Double Identity,  as an OCT Supporter As Well As A Truther?"

Some self-styled 9/11 truth activist who hides behind the pseudonym "Cosmos" apparently has enough time on his hands to devote himself to sabotaging my speaking events. A few years back, I was on the short list for a speaking tour of Australia, but got passed over because John Bursill of 911truthOz, who says he's a friend of "Cosmos," believed "Cosmos"'s lies about me.

Others who have invited me to speak in New York, California, and elsewhere have also been inundated with scurrilous emails from "Cosmos" and his friends. For example, Sander Hicks, organizer of last year's We Demand Transparency conference, told me last year that he had been deluged by emails from the usual suspects. Sander added that Cosmos buddy Jon Gold had ranted, raved, and threatened him, saying "If he (Kevin Barrett) attends your little shindig, then I will never trust you again. It's really that simple."

This summer, Ken O'Keefe told me that "Cosmos," Brian Good, and the rest of the tribe had deluged him with emails about what a terrible guy I was and how Ken shouldn't share a stage with me in London. Fortunately, Ken was willing to devote several hours to looking into their allegations, which, he concluded, were false and/or misleading. "Why are these people harassing you, Kevin?" he asked me over Thai food at a West London restaurant not far from his home. I told him the truth: I really don't know.

I added that if I were a paranoid conspiracy theorist, I would suspect that the whole wrecking crew--"Arabesque," "Col. Sparks," "Cosmos," Brian Good, Jon Gold, Michael Woolsey, and Victoria Ashley -- were agents of influence. That's basically what Webster Tarpley said at the 9/11 truth conference in New York in 2007.  Barrie Zwicker, who like Tarpley (and unlike the members of the wrecking crew) is a brilliant, accomplished voice of 9/11 truth, also suspects foul play. According to Barrie Zwicker "(the 9/11) perpetrators have assigned disinformation specialists to attack the honest citizen detectives of CIT." The suspected "disinformation specialists" he is referring to are essentially the same people and anonymous entities listed above...the same people who devote enormous amounts of time to sabotaging my speaking events, asking bookstores not to carry my books, and in some cases physically stalking my wife and me.

Now, Adam Syed has discovered evidence to back these suspicions.  In his new article "Is Cosmos Living Out a Double Identity,  as an OCT Supporter As Well As A Truther?" Syed shows that "Cosmos" repeatedly claimed to be the nephew of 9/11 victim Mickey Rothenberg, before changing his story and saying that Rothenberg was just a family friend. Is "Cosmos" really Andrew Bernstein, an OCT supporter who also claims to be a nephew of Rothenberg? Maybe, maybe not. But any way you slice it, "Cosmos" has hidden his true identity and lied about being a family member, while devoting his time to sabotaging other 9/11 truth activists and events.

Why anyone would trust this character an inch is beyond me.

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Stanley's Fish Tale

Last Tuesday I invited the well-known scholar and NY Times columnist Stanley Fish to join me on the radio. Since he hasn't gotten back to me, I assume he isn't interested. That would be fine -- except that this is the guy who lied about me, and thereby helped trash my academic career, in a huge article on the op-ed page of the Sunday New York Times!

Below is my email to Fish. I'm not holding my breath waiting for a reply.

-KB


Dear Stanley Fish,

I saw your article about the 9/11 conference in the Catskills, and would like to extend an invitation to talk about it, and about your essay "There's No Such Thing As Free Speech," on one of my radio shows.   Current openings include Tuesdays beginning August 31 noon to 1 pm Eastern, and Saturdays beginning September 4th 7-8 pm Eastern.

I have read and admired quite a bit of your work over the years -- but did not admire your NY Times op-ed that slandered me and contributed to destroying my academic career

That op-ed falsely claimed that I was teaching "Conspiracy Theories 101" in my Religion and Culture of Islam course at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and that I "shared with students" my "strong conviction that the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job perpetrated by the American government." This is an outright lie. In that course, the majority of assigned readings on 9/11 took the official story for granted, while only one directly questioned it; and I had intended to present the various views neutrally and let the students come to their own conclusions. (Watch one of my students make this point to a smarmy, condescending Bill O'Reilly here.)

I most certainly was not "sharing" any of my strong personal convictions, on 9/11 or anything else, with students. Had it not been for the media circus staged by Republican state legislator Steve Nass, my students would never have known that I held any strong convictions about what happened on 9/11. None of the students from the many classes I taught in previous semesters ever knew that I held any strong convictions about 9/11, unless they encountered them outside of the classroom -- which as far as I know none of them did, since Nass had not yet forced them on the world at large.

At the time, I called your attention to the fact that your op-ed was based on a false premise. Your response, as I recall, was evasive.

Having admired the clarity of thought displayed in many of your writings, I am disappointed by your confused response to the controversy about whether I had the right to express my strong convictions about 9/11 on my own time -- not in the classroom -- while teaching at the University of Wisconsin. A parallel confusion, it seems to me, informs the pages of "There's No Such Thing As Free Speech." In fact, there is such a thing as free speech, it is protected by the First Amendment and by the doctrine of academic freedom, it has been systematically violated since 9/11 (including in my case) and you have contributed significantly to its violation.

I propose that we spend an hour on the radio, half of it devoted to an exchange about why each of us hold the views we do about 9/11, and the other half about the question of free speech.

Thank you for considering this, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Kevin

(phone number redacted)

Kevin Barrett
http://www.truthjihad.com
Author, Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters: http://www.questioningthewaronterror.com

Thursday, August 26, 2010

I Graciously Accept Rolling Stone's Obnoxiousness Award - Now Where's My Check?

Since an excited friend emailed me that I had won Matt Taibbi's "Most Obnoxious Thing on the Internet This Month" award, I have been looking forward to my $10,000 check and working on my acceptance speech. Here is a draft of that speech:

Ladies and gentlemen...I stand before you humbled, awed, and amazed to have been recognized as the author of the most obnoxious thing on the internet.

My late father, a two-time Olympic medalist, had to triumph over thousands of talented and determined racing sailors. Muhammad Ali, to become "the greatest" (boxer of all time), had to beat out hundreds of thousands who have tried their fists at boxing. But to become the recognized leader in internet obnoxiousness...that, I am proud to say, is a nonpareil achievement.

Today, we are living in a world in which literally billions of people are competing in internet obnoxiousness:  a world where cyber-hate and flame wars and even death threats abound, a world where internet porn takes up the lion's share of the bandwidth, a world in which a Google search for "Palin boob job" returns 110,000 hits. To even place in the top ten million, in internet obnoxiousness, is a magnificent accomplishment.

How, you may ask, did I manage this astonishing feat? To what do I owe my supreme success? What does it take to reach the coveted number one position?

As it turns out, my triumph -- for all it owed to hard work, pluck, determination, and a certain natural ability to be really, REALLY obnoxious -- finally boiled down to one thing: pure, unadultrated luck.

Taibbi, explaining why he felt compelled to award me the Obnoxiousness Prize, gave me high marks for my basic concept: the proposal for a taxpayer-funded mega-mosque at Ground Zero sporting Twin Minarets to replace the nanothermite-demolished Towers, erected as a monumental apology for falsely blaming Muslims for 9/11. But as it turns out, that wasn't enough. It was my proposal for a 9/11 truth museum that did the trick.

Taibbi explains:

He goes on. Note the excellent suggestion that the Mosque should house an "unflattering wax figurine" of former 9/11 landlord Larry Silverstein:
This mosque should house a 9/11 Truth Museum documenting the evidence that 9/11 was carried out by U.S. and Israeli insiders, not Muslims. It could include such artifacts as the laughably bogus “last will and testament of Mohammed Atta,” pieces of airplane wreckage from earlier crashes that were planted at the alleged 9/11 crash sites, WTC structural steel samples showing melting and evaporation caused by explosives, videos and other objects seized from the Israeli Mossad team that filmed and celebrated their colleagues’ destruction of the World Trade Center, unflattering wax figures of such 9/11 villains as Dick Cheney, Larry Silverstein, and Benjamin Netanyahu, and samples of nanothermite-laden World Trade Center dust.
So not only should there be a Mosque at Ground Zero, the Mosque should include an unflattering and undoubtedly absurdly anti-Semitic wax caricature of the Towers' Jewish landlord. If that isn't the "This one goes to eleven" moment of conspiratorial quackery, I'm not sure what is. If anyone else has found something more offensive in the Ground Zero discussion, let me know, but for now this is my clubhouse leader.

What incredible luck! When I wrote the piece, I had randomly selected Cheney, Silverstein and Netanyahu (I might as easily have included Rumsfeld and Myers) as 9/11 villains, purely on the basis of evidence for their complicity in 9/11, without any thought of their ethnicity. In fact, when I try to imagine unflattering wax figures of these three, the one that comes to my mind's eye is the naturally-hideous Cheney. But fortunately for me, when Matt Taibbi hears the name "Larry Silverstein," he immediately imagines a stereotypical caricature of a hook-nosed Jew. Apparently it was Taibbi's own obnoxiously bigoted imagination, in purely fortuitous juxtaposition with my own undeniable genius for relatively innocent obnoxiousness, that carried the day.

So, while I am flattered by Taibbi's Obnoxiousness Award, I am not sure that it is not Taibbi himself who deserves it. Here are a few questions for him.

Hey Matt! Why are you so quick to imagine Silverstein, whose fingerprints are all over 9/11, as a stereotypical hook-nosed Jew...and then to condemn your own depraved imagination by projecting it on me? Are you equally disgusted by the millions of stereotypically "Muslim" images of Bin Laden--who, by the way,  repeatedly denied any involvement in 9/11 and deplored the attacks as un-Islamic before his death in December 2001?

Since Taibbi is experiencing a powerful inner conflict between the anti-Jewish stereotypes he cannot help entertaining, and a superego commanding him "don't say anything negative about Jews" (actually that may be the media-dominators he works for, rather than his superego, issuing the command), I wonder how he would react to this article in Veterans Today:  Israeli Control of America

For the next Obnoxiousness Award, I nominate Israeli Control of America--which, unlike my mega-mosque proposal, actually DOES talk about Jews and Jewish power in America. The only question is whether it is the article itself, or the list of facts it contains, that is disturbing.

Anyway...In gratitude for his generous decision to honor me with the coveted Obnoxiousness Award, I have coined a new expression and named it after my esteemed benefactor.

Taibbi's truism: When truth is obnoxious, only the obnoxious can tell the truth.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

American Professor Charges Israel with Genocide -- Publisher Censors Title!

William A. Cook, professor of English at the University of La Verne in southern California, has charged the state of Israel with genocide -- but his publisher won't let him use the G word in the title of his new book!

Discussing the brand-new The Plight of the Palestinians: A Long History of Destruction on the Kevin Barrett show yesterday, Dr. Cook said that the publishers, Palgrave-McMillan, told him: "'We can't use the original title As the World Watches: Genocide in Palestine.'" Dr. Cook added that the book's contents, which provide ample proof that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians, were not censored.

I asked Dr. Cook: "There does seem to be a taboo against calling what is being done to the Palestinians genocide. And yet, according to the internationally-accepted definition of genocide...as I recall, there is a strong argument that it does fit what's happening in Palestine."

Dr Cook responded:

"The book deals with that point quite extensively in at least three different places (including my article). The Christisons' article deals with it as well. In the article that I wrote, 'The Rape of Palestine'...I refer to the 1944 genocide term, which was a neologism created by Raphael Lemkin in The Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn summarized Lemkin's meaning. And let me read that paragraph because I think it's essential to grasp the fulness of the intent the UN grappled with and passed in its accepted definition of genocide. Under Lemkin's definition genocide was 'the coordinated and planned annihilation of a national, religious, or racial group by a variety of actions aimed at undermining the foundations essential to the survival of the group as a group.' That's group, it is not state. Lemkin conceived of genocide as 'a composite of different acts of persecution or destruction.' That's a quote. His definition included 'attacks on political and social institutions, culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of the group.' Even non-lethal acts that undermined the liberty, dignity, and personal security of members of the group constituted genocide, if they contributed to weakening the viability of the group. Under Lemkin's definition, acts of ethnocide, a term coined by the French after the war to cover the destruction of a culture without the killing of its bearers, also qualified as genocide. You take that composite understanding, and everything looking back from today -- the siege on Gaza, going back to the various intentional destructions and massacres in Janin or Rafa, Ramallah, you realize that what's taking place, including the building of the wall, which makes the independent economic condition of the Palestinian people impossible -- that is genocide."

Listen to my interview with Dr. William Cook.

The quoted segment begins about 14:40.

Monday, August 16, 2010

FBI Ignores Iranian Intelligence Death Threat to Hostage Crisis Hero

"An Iranian intelligence agent recently approached Phil Tourney, hero of the 1980 hostage crisis, to deliver a death threat...and the FBI isn't interested."

Sounds implausible?

Wrong.

It's impossible.

We all know that if any Middle Eastern intelligence service threatened a heroic survivor of that country's attack on the US, the hero's face would soon be plastered all over Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, CNN, Fox...and that Middle Eastern country would get sanctioned, if not bombed.

Unless the Middle Eastern country was Israel. See: The Man With The Israeli Accent–USS LIBERTY Survivor’s Life Threatened by Mossad on American Soil While Uncle Sam Yawns.  And listen to my interview with Phil Tourney, recorded last Saturday (it's the last half-hour of the show).

When Israel bombs American facilities in Egypt, butchers American sailors on an unarmed spy ship, blows up the Twin Towers and openly celebrates, and now threatens heroic survivor-activist Phil Tourney, American authorities just cough politely and look away. 

Meanwhile, the Zionist-dominated media is prepping us to attack Iran for Israel.

If I were a young man, I would embark on a career as a US military officer, and devote my life to a single, long-term project: organizing a coup d'etat against the Zionist forces occupying the USA; and restoring Constitutional rule.

I hope and pray this project is already underway.

Sunday, August 15, 2010

NYC Mosque Controversy "A Golden Opportunity" for 9/11 Truth!


This just in from my 2008 campaign adviser Rolf Lindgren:

Golden Opportunity!

Are you a Libertarian, a defender of Ron Paul or a 9/11 Truth activist?  Do you defend the US Constitution?  Are you pro-liberty?  Are you sick of the GOP establishment, RINOs, neocons, warmongers, and other NWO types trying to hijack the Tea Party movement?

Well, if you are, now you have a golden opportunity.  The mosque at ground zero flap is your chance to speak out!  Now is the time to join a tea party movement and post your favorite material & videos about 9/11 and/or WTC 7.  There are certainly going to be right wing nut-jobs who oppose the property rights of thsoe who want to build a mosque.

Here is a link to help get you started:

tea party yahoo groups

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

NY Times "German 9/11 mosque" article plagued by false statements, Islamophobia

Not everybody "got" the ambivalent humor of my Build a Mega-Mosque on Ground Zero proposal. So I'm returning to straightfaced seriousness -- all outrage and no wit. Below is today's letter to the New York Times ombudsman.
-KB
The "New York Slimes" slimes Muslims with 
unsubstantiated accusations


Arthur Brisbane, Public Editor
 The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
(212) 556-7652

Dear Mr. Brisbane,

The article "Mosque Used by 9/11 Plotters Is Closed" published August 9th contains misstatements of fact that appear designed to incite Islamophobia.

The article begins: "The authorities in Hamburg said Monday that they had shut down the mosque where several of the hijackers involved in the Sept. 11 attacks had met..."  Its ninth paragraph reads: "The mosque achieved worldwide notoriety after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi and other members of the group that carried out the attacks had used the mosque as a meeting place."

Atta, al-Shehhi and the "other members of the group" have never been convicted in a court of law of carrying out the 9/11 attacks, nor has any actual evidence  against any of them -- and by "evidence" I mean evidence that would stand up in a court of law -- ever been made public. On the contrary, not one shred of evidence has ever placed any of the nineteen alleged hijackers aboard any of the alleged attack planes. Conspicuously missing from the record are boarding passes, official passenger lists, security videos, and testimony from those who would have ticketed and boarded these young men had they actually been on the planes. Additionally, at least ten of the alleged hijackers were reliably reported to have been alive after 9/11, and several others were victims of identity theft and impersonation, apparently by intelligence agents setting them up to be framed for 9/11.

The best short scholarly study of how these nineteen young men were apparently framed for 9/11 is Jay Kolar's "What We Know About the 9/11 Hijackers," published by Elsevier, Europe's leading scholarly publisher. 

Kolar's article, which has never been adequately answered by supporters of the official conspiracy theory, shows, at minimum, that there is a robust scholarly debate about the quality of "evidence" against the nineteen alleged hijackers. Therefore, calling these innocent young men -- innocent because they have never been proven guilty in a court of law -- "9/11 plotters," "hijackers," or members of "the group that carried out the attacks" is Islamophobic propaganda, not journalism. 

Sincerely,

Dr. Kevin Barrett
Ph.D. University of Wisconsin (2004), Arabic/Islamic Studies focus

PS The English-speaking world's leading Mideast journalist, Robert Fisk, has (along with most of the world's Muslim intellectuals) noted that the five-page handwritten document the FBI says it found in Atta's luggage is a ludicrous fraud.
Likewise, America's leading academic Bin Laden expert, Dr. Bruce Lawrence, has called Bin Laden's alleged confession video "bogus."   When the authorities plant evidence or accept planted evidence, suspects are routinely deemed "not guilty" for obvious reasons.
For an overview of the subject, see: http://davidraygriffin.com/articles/was-america-attacked-by-muslims-on-911/

Monday, August 9, 2010

My 50,000 Watt Slugfest with Mike Pintek on KDKA Pittsburgh

Click here to listen to my interview with Mike Pintek on KDKA, recorded earlier today

Below is the press release I sent out this morning that garnered the interview. Let me know what you think!
-Kevin



Khadir Press
Post Office Box 221
Lone Rock, WI 53556

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 9th

Islamic Studies Expert: U.S. Should Apologize to Muslims, Build Mega-Mosque AT Ground Zero...at Taxpayer Expense!

Lone Rock, WI - 2010  -  Author and Islamic Studies expert Dr. Kevin Barrett is no stranger to controversy. He has been pilloried as a "nut" by Sean Hannity, drawn a death fatwa from Bill O'Reilly, and taken on sixty Republican state legislators who wanted him fired from his job at the University of Wisconsin. His latest proposal--that the US government should build the world's tallest mosque at Ground Zero as an apology to Muslims for falsely blaming them for 9/11--is unlikely to quiet his detractors.

In an open letter to President Obama, copied to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other New York officials, Dr. Barrett argues that the U.S. government is guilty of "genocide" against the Muslims of Iraq, Palestine, and (arguably) Afghanistan. Additionally, Dr. Barrett argues that U.S. officials are also "guilty of unconstitutionally waging war against the religion of Islam." These crimes, Dr. Barrett asserts, were triggered by what he calls "the 9/11 false-flag attacks (which were) designed and carried out by enemies of Islam and falsely blamed on Muslims."

The U.S. should offer repentance and reparations for its crimes against Muslims, Dr. Barrett asserts, by covering the entire World Trade Center site with what would, if built, become the world's tallest mosque. "The new mosque should cover the entire World Trade Center property, and should feature twin minarets at least 700 feet tall," Barrett says. (Currently the world's tallest minaret is the 689 feet tower at the Grand Mosque of Casablanca, Morocco.) Barrett adds that the Ground Zero mega-mosque should be built at taxpayer expense. "This would not violate the Constitutional prohibition on showing favoritism to any particular religion," he explains, "because the U.S. government and the bankers who own it have already spent trillions attacking Islam. Giving back a few billion in the form of a great mosque at Ground Zero would be a minimal symbolic gesture towards setting things right." Dr. Barrett claims that since countries that did not perpetrate the Holocaust still pay Holocaust reparations to the Jewish state of Israel, any nation that has murdered millions of Muslims and waged a worldwide war against the religion of Islam obviously owes far greater reparations to Muslims.

Dr. Barrett says the gigantic new mosque at Ground Zero should include a "9/11 truth museum" documenting the evidence that 9/11 was carried out by American and Israeli insiders, not Muslims. The museum could include such artifacts as the laughably bogus "last will and testament of Mohammed Atta," pieces of airplane wreckage from earlier crashes that were planted at the alleged 9/11 crash sites, WTC structural steel samples showing melting and evaporation caused by explosives, videos and other objects seized from the Israeli Mossad team that filmed and celebrated their colleagues' destruction of the World Trade Center, unflattering wax figures of such 9/11 villains as Dick Cheney, Larry Silverstein, and Benjamin Netanyahu, and samples of nanothermite-laden World Trade Center dust.Dr. Barrett adds that the "truth museum" should also include displays honoring "the patriots of the 9/11 truth movement, who have selflessly sacrificed so much in the path of truth, justice, and the Constitution."

Neither President Obama nor Mayor Bloomberg has yet rejected Dr. Barrett's proposal.

* * *

Kevin Barrett, a PhD Arabist-Islamologist, is one of America's best-known critics of the War on Terror. His new book Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters sold out its first print run in six months and is currently available in a new, revised edition.

Dr. Barrett is a co-editor of the book 9/11 and American Empire (Volume II) and author of Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie (2007).

Dr. Barrett has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications. Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin, where he ran for Congress in 2008. He currently works as a nonprofit organizer, author, and talk radio host. His website is http://www.truthjihad.com.

Saturday, August 7, 2010

My Letter to Obama: "Build a Mega-Mosque ON Ground Zero to Atone for 9/11 Inside job!"

truthjihad.com

5  August 2010

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear President Obama,

In your Cairo speech of June 4th, 2009, you greeted the Muslim world with "as-salaaamu alikum," meaning "peace be with you." In that speech, you said:

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

Mr. President, if you genuinely seek a new beginning, you need to revisit the moment when things went massively, wildly wrong: The morning of September 11th, 2001. In your Cairo speech you had this to say about 9/11:

I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al-Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al-Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. . . . These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Mr President: The vast majority of the world's Muslims, and more than 100 million Americans, take issue with your alleged "facts." Polls show that upwards of 75% of Muslims globally, 60% of American Muslims, and 36% of all Americans either believe or suspect that 9/11 was an inside job designed to trigger the wars that followed. A growing scholarly literature shows that the 9/11 doubters are right, and that 9/11 was a false-flag operation whose authors framed innocent Muslims, including Bin Laden, as patsies. (Incidentally, Bin Laden has NOT claimed credit for 9/11. On the contrary: Before his death in December 2001, he denied and deplored the 9/11 attacks, calling them un-Islamic, and asserting that they were carried out by "American Jews" as documented in my book Questioning the War on Terror.)

If you want to be re-elected and earn an honoured place in history, Mr. President, you need to end the phony "war on terror" and the 9/11 big lie on which it is based. To do this, you must appoint a 9/11 Truth Commission staffed by such independent 9/11 skeptics as Drs. David Ray Griffin, Peter Dale Scott, Steven Jones, and Richard Gage...along with others, such as Sen. Max Cleland -- the one honorable original member of the 9/11 Commission -- who can be trusted to act with integrity.

When the findings of the Truth Commission exonerate Muslims and implicate the enemies of Muslims, as those findings undoubtedly will, you will be faced with a truly historic dilemma: How to offer repentance and reparation for the U.S. government's crimes against Muslims that followed the 9/11 false-flag attacks. The U.S. government is guilty of genocide against the Muslims of Iraq, Palestine, and (arguably) Afghanistan; it has launched unconstitutional wars of aggression against these nations and murdered more than one million Muslims, all based on the 9/11 big lie. How can such monstrous crimes be atoned for?

The best means of repentance and reparation, in my view, would be for the U.S. government to fund and build a new mosque at Ground Zero covering the entire World Trade Center site, with twin minarets looming above in memory of the Twin Towers' destruction by genocidal Islamophobes. The minarets should be more than 700 feet in height, which would make the new structure the world's tallest mosque. This mosque should house a 9/11 Truth Museum documenting the evidence that 9/11 was carried out by U.S. and Israeli insiders, not Muslims.  It could include such artifacts as the laughably bogus "last will and testament of Mohammed Atta," pieces of airplane wreckage from earlier crashes that were planted at the alleged 9/11 crash sites, WTC structural steel samples showing melting and evaporation caused by explosives, videos and other objects seized from the Israeli Mossad team that filmed and celebrated their colleagues' destruction of the World Trade Center, unflattering wax figures of such 9/11 villains as Dick Cheney, Larry Silverstein, and Benjamin Netanyahu, and samples of nanothermite-laden World Trade Center dust.

Even in the radically different political atmosphere of a post-9/11-truth world, some will undoubtedly argue that the U.S. government should not build a mosque due to the Constitutional separation of church and state. But in fact, the proposed project would not violate the Constitutional prohibition on favoritism to any particular religion, because the U.S. government and the bankers who own it have already spent trillions attacking Islam. Giving back a few billion in the form of a great mosque at Ground Zero would be a minimal symbolic gesture towards setting things right, and would not in itself overcome the preponderance of US government actions unconstitutionally discriminating against Islam. Additionally, it would follow the precedent set by many nations including the U.S., all but one of which were not directly implicated in the Holocaust, which have paid trillions in direct or indirect reparations to the Jewish state of Israel and other Jewish agencies.

Thank you in advance for supporting this worthy project, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Dr. Kevin J. Barrett
POB 221
Lone Rock, WI 53556


CC: Mayor Michael Bloomberg, City Hall, New York, NY 10007;  New York City Council Members, 250 Broadway, New York, NY 10007; New York City Planning Commission, Central Office: 22 Reade Street
New York, NY 10007-1216.

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

What the HELL Ever Happened to the Sacred? Thoughts on Islamophobia


Anastassia Churkina let me reference the 9/11 inside job in this Russia Today report on Islamophobia

* * *

A reader wrote to me with some Islamophobic idées reçues. I responded, debunking the misconceptions and recommending Michael Sells' Approaching the Qur'an and Murata and Chittick's The Vision of Islam as the best introductions to Islam in English.  His response below is in italics, and my response to his response in regular type.

Maybe I overreacted.  I believe most Muslims are good people.  The treatment of the Palestinians and the Iraqis are atrocious.  I don't have a PHD in religious studies.  I took a world religions course in college several decades ago, and I've done some studying on my own.  I may read those books that you suggested when I have time.  I have no love lost for the Zionists.  I think they possibly are our biggest threat.

But when I read in the papers of the treatment of women in Islamic countries and how criminals receive cruel treatment I can't understand how someone can call Islam a religion of peace.


Most feminists in Islamic countries say Islam liberates them from the traditional tribal-patriarchal culture, which had drifted away from Islam. Remember, not all traditional behavior in Islamic countries is Islamic! For example, female circumcision is tribal and anti-Islamic; Islam clearly forbids it. The struggle in these cultures is between tribalists who do it, and pious Muslims who are trying to stop it.

My Moroccan wife, a very strong, brilliant, willful and independent woman (occasionally too much so in some ways!) says women have it vastly better under Islam, where they're honored, revered, completely supported by their husbands AND with the right to their own money, than in the West, where they're exploited pieces of meat who have to work both inside AND outside the home and be treated as sex objects used to sell consumer-culture goodies.  And she's no fundamentalist -- she's a poet in three languages and sings in an acid jazz band.

As for the relative handful of criminals who have hands and heads cut off in a handful of countries, compare their numbers, and suffering, to the millions of prisoners raped and tortured in the American prison gulag. (Most long-term American prisoners would happily trade a hand to get out of their hellhole -- so which system is crueler?) Anybody who thinks the Islamic crime and punishment system is harsh should do a fair comparison of Islamic countries to other countries at the same level of economic and educational development -- and to the USA.  I guarantee that the results would not make the Islamic lands look particularly bad. I also guarantee that the USA would come out looking atrociously barbaric. (Drug prisoners always want to serve their time in Mexico, not US prisons, because ours are inhuman rape-torture hellholes.)

What do you think of the Fatwa on Salman Rushdie? Do you think it was right to have a death sentence issued against him for his "Satanic Verses" book? 


It was tragic -- a black mark on the Iranian revolution.  I admire as well as despise Rushdie (I even named my dog after him).  He's an ambitious writer and he's got balls; at the same time, he's a egotistical provocateur who is serving the Islamophobic agenda. I also admire Khomeni, who is definitely one of the greatest men of the century. Unfortunately all successful big-time politicians do horrible things, and the Rushdie fatwa was one of them. It was a calculated political move, and a bad one, both ethically and pragmatically.

Speaking of death fatwas...when Bill O'Reilly put one on me, I could have used the kind of publicity Rushdie got from his. (Where was the media? Where is my Scotland Yard protection? Where are the million-dollar contracts from publishing houses? Seems a Khomeni fatwa is a ticket to riches, while an O'Reilly fatwa ain't worth squat.)

 And the murder of Van Gogh's great grandson.  Was that the work of a fanatical Muslim or a false-flag event?

Either a moron/psycho or a false-flag.  BTW,  the "Muslims" in photos with "death to freedom" signs are generally Mossad rent-a-mobs. Remember, almost everything  our media reports from the Arab and Islamic countries comes from the Mossad's MEMRI, which is a Goebbels-style hate propaganda outfit. All the anecdotal stuff you see that makes Islam look bad is either fabricated or cherry-picked and spun by MEMRI (Mossad psy-ops) and its accomplices in the Zionist-dominated mainstream media.

By the way, though I'm not a supporter of violence against blasphemers, over-the-top Islamophobia is just as insane as the occasional violent responses to it.  Back when we had a self-respecting culture, even the meekest turn-the-other-cheek Christian would have kicked the s**t out of anybody who did "piss Christ" or anything like it.  What the HELL ever happened to the sacred?  Why can't people respect the sacred, both their own and other people's?

Today, our minds are owned by NWO Satanists who did the 9/11 human sacrifice in order to create the new religion of Holy Islamophobia...the next stage of the Holocaust Religion.

To hell with the Illuminati satanists and their "nothing sacred" philosophy of debasing and degrading all that is holy. The Islamophobes are their agents and dupes. Don't follow them down the road to hell.

Kevin

PS I'll be discussing these issues with Israel Shamir next Tuesday. And for more about the Illuminati satanists check out my interview with Henry Makow -- click here and skip ahead to the second hour.

Monday, August 2, 2010

Islamophobic Mother Jones article illustrates Jew/Muslim double-standard

Speaking of double-standards...

The foundation-funded pseudo-alternative rag Mother Jones just published an article entitled The GOP's Facebook Anti-Semites by Nick Baumann. It begins:

"Israel is responsible for 9/11, Al Qaeda is '100% state sponsored by Zionist Jews,' and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is actually an agent for Mossad, the Israeli spy agency—at least according to posts that appeared on the Republican National Committee's Facebook page."

Let's take these three allegedly anti-Semitic assertions one by one.

Israel is responsible for 9/11

Why is it anti-Semitic to blame Israel? After all, Israel is a specific nation-state, and blaming a country is not the same as blaming Jews (members of a religious group). Blaming a specific nation, especially in light of the evidence, is hardly an act of bigotry.

Blaming Muslims (or "radical Muslims") or Islam (or "radical Islam") directly references a religion and its adherents, and is therefore an act of bigotry -- especially given the complete lack of evidence for significant Muslim involvement in 9/11. Baumann, in implicitly supporting the Islamophobic lie that Muslims did 9/11, while mendaciously smearing the largely true statement "Israel is responsible for 9/11," is the actual bigot.

Al-Qaeda is 100% state sponsored by Zionist Jews

This statement does reference "Jews" but specifies which kind: Zionist ones. Hating Zionism is not a form of bigotry, but a rational response to the sad facts of recent Middle Eastern history.  So though this statement is an exaggeration -- al-Qaeda is probably only 9-11% sponsored by Zionists -- it isn't necessarily the product of a bigot. More likely, it is the product of someone furious that Zionists like Straussian "philosophers" Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Larry Silverstein, and Benjamin Netanyahu (and their "gentlemen" dupes Cheney and Rumsfeld) blew up the World Trade Center with almost 3000 people inside, then lied about it to trigger wars that have killed over a million human beings and will kill millions if not billions more...and got away with it thanks to the power of the Zionist Power Configuration, especially the Zionist-dominated media. Righteous anger and bigotry are two very different things.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is actually an agent for Mossad 

This statement of fact is very likely true -- and truth is an absolute defense against charges of libel, and bigotry; while avoiding truth, in order to keep blaming Muslims for a crime they didn't commit, IS an act of bigotry. Below is a selection from the new second edition of my book Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters.

Is the Man Who Controls Access to President Obama a Mossad Agent?

After 9/11, the U.S. followed Israel to become the second nation on earth that officially tortures people as a matter of public policy. As we saw earlier, it was such Israel-firsters as Alan Dershowitz who successfully pushed for the U.S.A. to join the Zionist torture brigade. Most other War on Terror abuses, including extrajudicial assassinations and disappearances, "pre-emptive" wars of aggression, ethnic profiling, omnipresent government surveillance, intrusive searches at security checkpoints, and so on were developed in Israel, then imposed on the U.S.A. by the Zionist neoconservatives who seized power in the wake of 9/11.

If the new, post-9/11, Constitution-free U.S.A. was modeled on Israel, and if this Zionist model was imposed on a shocked nation by the neoconservatives in Dick Cheney's office and the Pentagon during the Bush Administration, then why have so many unconstitutional policies continued so seamlessly under Obama, who criticized them during his campaign? Is there a continuing Zionist influence in and around the White House, beyond the obvious case of the self-proclaimed Zionist Vice President, Joe Biden?[i]

The President's Chief of Staff is the man who controls access to the President. For that reason, the Chief of Staff has been called "the second-most powerful man in Washington next to the president."[ii] Why, then, did President Obama appoint to that position Rahm Emanuel, son of a Zionist terrorist, himself a War on Terror enthusiast who has served with the Israeli Defense Forces and who may be, according to intelligence sources, an agent of the Israeli Mossad?[iii]

In a November 6, 2009 story entitled "Obama faced with security problem at outset of transition process," former National Security Agency official Wayne Madsen reports: "WMR has learned from informed U.S. intelligence sources that prospective Barack Obama White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has an active FBI counter-intelligence file maintained on him. Emanuel's rise to the Chief of Staff position may pose a significant security problem for President-elect Obama if the FBI insists on conducting the full background security investigation normally required for senior White House officials. Questions about Emanuel's links to the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad, were allegedly so great that President Bill Clinton was forced to dismiss Emanuel from the White House staff in 1998..."[iv] According to Madsen's sources, "FBI surveillance teams have seen Emanuel enter Washington, DC and Chicago synagogues at the same time known Mossad agents assigned to the Israeli embassy in Washington and the Israeli Consulate General in Chicago entered the facilities."[v] Madsen describes how Emanuel, while in the Clinton Adminstration, sabotaged Clinton initiatives on behalf of Mossad. "It was the FBI that revealed Emanuel's intelligence work on behalf of the Mossad to President Clinton. Clinton then ordered Emanuel dismissed from the White House staff."[vi]

Emanuel may be sabotaging Obama's agenda even more thoroughly than he sabotaged Clinton's. In November 2009, Greg Craig, architect of Obama's plans to close Guantanamo, resigned—and the knife in his back reportedly had Emanuel's fingerprints all over it. An expert source close to the scene "confirmed that Emmanuel was angry at Craig, both over the Guantanamo issue, but also because the decision to release memos related to interrogation practices led to a media firestorm that became a problem for the White House."[vii] In short, Israel-firster and suspected Mossad agent Rahm Emanuel opposes closing Guantanamo and wants to cover up (Israeli-inspired) Bush Administration torture practices. This is the man, remember, who controls access to Obama. If we had to choose just one person to blame for Obama's continuation of Bush's War on Terror, an obvious choice would be Obama's Mossadnik Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel.


[i] Yitzhak Benhorin, "Biden in 2007 interview: I am a Zionist," YNet News, August 23, 2008 (http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3586542,00.html).

[ii] Lawrence Spivak, interviewed on MSNBC, Meet the Press, transcript of July 23, 2006 broadcast (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13904922/ns/meet_the_press//).

[iii] Paul Joseph Watson, "Obama’s First Appointment Is Son Of Zionist Terrorist: Rahm Emanuel’s father was member of militant terror group that bombed hotels, massacred villagers – Obama pick is keen supporter of lobbying group aimed at creating militarized youth brigades," Prison Planet, November 6, 2008 (http://www.prisonplanet.com/obamas-first-appointment-is-son-of-zionist-terrorist.html).

[iv] Wayne Madsen Report, November 6, 2008 (http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/), cited at LiveLeak (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b4b_1226229939).

[v] Wayne Madsen Report, November 10, 2008.

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] Josh Rogin, "What's behind Greg Craig's resignation?" The Cable, November 13 2009 (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/11/13/whats_behind_greg_craigs_resignation).
 

Sunday, August 1, 2010

More Warnings of a Disastrous, Zionist-Instigated US War on Iran

 

THE HIDDEN FACE OF SANCTIONS

By Dr. Alan Sabrosky* (who will soon be returning to my show to follow up on his groundbreaking "Israel did 9/11 and the US military knows it" appearance a few months ago -KB)

The sanctions imposed recently against Iran by the United Nations, and later separately by the US Congress, have one thing in common. Both were driven by the US at the instigation of Israel.

But they are also, I believe, generally misunderstood. Sanctions are normally intended to alter the behavior of the country being sanctioned — to punish it for what it is doing, to keep it from continuing practices or policies others find objectionable, or both.

And overtly, that is the function of these sanctions. But that is not their actual purpose.

Now, I do not know whether Iran’s government has a hidden military agenda to its nuclear program. Given Israel’s own nuclear capabilities, and the very different fates of Iraq (which had no nuclear weapons) and North Korea (which did), any sensible country anywhere on Israel’s enemies list — which is by extension today America’s target list — would acquire a deliverable nuclear capability by any means whatsoever as soon as possible.

But the reality is to see sanctions against Iran in the same light as inspections for the non-existent WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) in Iraq in 2002-2003. In those days, the US and its close partners kept insisting that Iraq had WMDs when none of the inspectors on the ground, including the US representatives, found or believed it had.

Yet the claims persisted, and the purpose was to condition the US public for a war that need never have happened, except for Israel and its partisans in the US. And they succeeded. Americans generally believed the false claims, generally supported the war against Iraq, and whatever disenchantment occurred took place only because the war and the subsequent occupation did not proceed as smoothly as its architects had intended.

This is the pattern being repeated against Iran. The real purpose of sanctions is not to affect the policies of the Iranian government, because nothing it does will affect the sanctions. It is to prepare the US public for an attack against Iran, almost certainly in conjunction with Israel, to destroy Israel’s last remaining competitor in the region and to provide a cover for Israel’s expulsion of the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza, into Jordan and the Sinai respectively.

So it would be unwise either to disregard sanctions or to try to accommodate them. The only sensible response, I believe, for Iran and its friends is to put in place something that the US would not dare to attack. That inevitably means something with or from China or India, especially the former, no matter what the cost — because anything expended to preclude a US-Israeli strike would be far cheaper than enduring that strike and its aftermath, even if the region then exploded in America’s face. Watching an enemy suffer is fine, but not at that price.


*Alan Sabrosky (Ph.D, University of Michigan) is a ten-year US Marine Corps veteran and a graduate of the US Army War College 


Webster Tarpley: Obama Preparing to Bomb Iran

Tuesday, August 3rd, 9-10 a.m. Pacific (noon-1 pm Eastern) on http://NoLiesRadio.org, to be archived here a few hours after broadcast...

Webster Tarpley, author of 9/11 Synthetic Terror, Obama: The Unauthorized Biography, Surviving the Cataclysm, and much more will discuss his critically important new article Obama Is Preparing to Bomb Iran.

Tarpley isn't the only one warning that the neocons (read Zionist dual-citizen fanatics) are back in the saddle and about to lead the US off a cliff.

Here are some other important recent articles on the same topic:


The Real Aim of Israel’s Bomb Iran Campaign

By Gareth Porter

July 30, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- Reuel Marc Gerecht's screed justifying an Israeli bombing attack on Iran coincides with the opening of the new Israel lobby campaign marked by the introduction of House Resolution 1553 expressing full support for such an Israeli attack.

What is important to understand about this campaign is that the aim of Gerecht and of the right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu is to support an attack by Israel so that the United States can be drawn into direct, full-scale war with Iran.

That has long been the Israeli strategy for Iran, because Israel cannot fight a war with Iran without full U.S. involvement. Israel needs to know that the United States will finish the war that Israel wants to start... (full article here)

By Ruqayyah Shamseddine
Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” - George Orwell
On July 22nd a House Resolution was proposed by 47 US Representatives – led by Rep. Louis Buller Gohmert, Republican Representative from Texas’s 1st congressional district; House Resolution 1553... (full article here)