The dark embrace between the clerical regime in Tehran and the murderous cultist regime of Bashar Assad in Syria speaks volumes. The Iranian regime claims to be representing Islam and upholding the virtues of justice and freedom. However, in truth, Tehran and its allies in Lebanon and Iraq are effectively embracing one of the most nefarious regimes under the sun.
According to reliable news reports, Iran is providing the cultist regime in Damascus with more than lethal weapons to crush a popular revolution, demanding an end to decades of Alawite tyranny and terror.
Iran actually has been sending “volunteers,” military advisors and other terrorists who have been involved in murdering Syrian civilians, including women and children.
Last week, at least three members of Hezbullah were laid to rest in the southern neighborhood in Beirut. The three Shiite Shabbiha or thugs were killed while trying to repress protests demanding the downfall of the regime.
In Iraq, an undisclosed number of militiamen affiliated with the so-called Mehdi army, a Shiite militia answerable to the Iraqi cleric-turned-politician Muqtada al-Sadr were also buried in Iraq recently, having been killed in Syria while fighting on the side of Bashar Assad troops.
It is really hard to think of a plausible motive behind the absolute and unlimited backing by Iran and its Shiite Ithna Ashari (the twelvers) allies of a quasi atheistic and secular regime such as that of the Alawite minority in Damascus. A regime that belongs to the family of Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, and Adolph Hitler and history’s other mass murderers.
Indeed, until quite recently, most Iranian clerics considered the Alawites heretical and apostates due to their anthropomorphistic doctrine. The Alawites believe that Ali Ibn Abu Taleb, the prophet Muhammed’s cousin and son-in-law was God incarnate. The Alawites actually pray to Ali, not to Allah, as the Ithna Asharis do, although with clear polytheistic proclivities. (for example, they beseech, implore, and make supplications to Ali), which is considered by most other Muslims a form of polytheism or associating other gods with God.
Some Shilogists (scholars specialized in the study of the Shiite sects-historically more than 70 sects) argue that Iran is endearing itself to the Alawites in Syria in the hope of returning them to the Ithna Ashari fold. Others, claim that political and strategic considerations stand behind Iran’s embrace of the Assad regime, namely the undeclared Iranian plan to create the so-called Shiite Crescent, which includes Iran, Iraq, Lebanon (Hizbullah) and Syria to counter the main Sunni powers in the region, including Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
Iran carefully avoids any statements or signals suggesting harboring sectarian designs against Sunni powers. Instead, it accuses its critics of being “Wahhabis” or implementing, knowingly or unknowingly,the Zionist agenda.
In truth, however, Iran and its allies, including the Assad regime, are using Israel and the Palestinian plight as a mere red herring to divert attention from the real thing, namely their strategic designs to spread Shiite hegemony at the expense of Sunnis.
After all, the Syrian regime never fired a single bullet toward Israel ever since the 1973-war, and the liberation of the Golan Heights seems to be the last item on its goals and strategic priorities.
In the final analysis, one can safely assume that Iran’s deep historical animosity toward the Sunnis, especially Sunni Arabs, not its infatuation with the Alawite minority, stands behind the Islamic republic’s backing of the manifestly murderous regime of Bashar Assad.
Moreover, Iran obviously wants to avenge its failure in Bahrain to overthrow the pro-American and pro-Saudi Khalifa dynasty in order to create a small Shiite republic at Tehran’s beck and call.
Needless to say, the lebensraum-like Iranian designs in Iran are the main reason the so-called “Bahraini revolution” has received very little support and sympathy in the Arab world. So the heavy but not so-brazen Iranian implication in Syria may well be considered a kind of quid-pro-quo to avenge the “Sunni” crackdown on the Shiite revolt in Bahrain.
Indeed, a casual surfer of Shiite sites on the net would get the impression that large-scale massacres of Shiites have been taking place in Bahrain at the hands of the government there. The truth, however, is that in more than 16 months of disturbances and violent protests, less than 40 protesters were killed. We believe that the loss of even a single human being is too much. However, it would be dishonest and unethical to lump the Syrian and Bahraini situations in one category. After all, Syria is undergoing a real slow-motion genocide where the number of civilians, murdered and decapitated by the regime and its thugs in just one day or even one hour , exceeds by far the number of Shiites killed in Bahrain in a year and a half of violent protests aimed at throwing the Khalifa dynasty and transforming the small emirate into a Shiite republic.
Traditionally, the Shiites pride themselves on identifying themselves withy the oppressed and the down-trodden. However, when it comes to Sunni Muslims, the Shiites, especially the Iranians, have not hesitated to embrace the most murderous regimes on earth and ally themselves with invaders and occupiers of Muslim land. The warm Shiite alliance with the invading American armies in Iraq is just one example of many.
The Shiites often invoke the martyrdom of Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet, as a decisive, historical landmark battle between the forces of good and evil. This battle is reenacted every year during the Shiite commemoration of the battle of Karbula, which took place in the year 680 between Imam Hussein, his family and few supporters on the one hand and the forces of the Umayyad king Yazid, on the other, which ended with the death of Hussein.
Obviously, all Muslims. Shiites and Sunnis alike, believe Justice was on Hussein’s side. However, the Shiites held and continue to hold the entire Muslim Umma, including Muslims of our time, responsible and guilty for what happen more than 1300 years ago, an illogical and irrational attitude reflecting historical vengeance and hatred.
There is no doubt that the Shiites of our time are siding with and embracing the Yazid of our time, namely the murderous and Nazi-like regime of Bashar Assad.
This dark embrace, this evil alliance, can never be tolerated, let alone forgiven. The Shiites have simply blown up all bridges of unity with their Sunni Muslim brothers and neighbors. And no amount of lies, propaganda, and disinformation or prevarication will succeed in blurring or obliterating this perfidy.
I do realize that there are decent Shiites who don’t condone the evil acts of the Assad regimes. These are a small numerical minority but we do salute for their rectitude and honesty. However, it is a fact that the bulk of Shiites, including the clergy, support, even enthusiastically, the genocidal crimes of the Syrian regime, which really draws a serious question mark about the Shiites’ human and moral credentials.
Since we now have conclusive evidence that Arafat was poisoned by radioactive polonium 210 and since Israel is the prime suspect in Arafat’s 2004 assassination, surely it is time to point the finger at Israel and its leadership and to demand explanations.
Already in 2004, Silvan Shalom, at the time Israeli Foreign Minister, rejected as “scandalous and false” the idea that his country had a role in Arafat’s death. However, this is despite the facts that Israel had earlier threatened Arafat, blaming him for Palestinian violence and, after losing 15 citizens to suicide bombings in September 2003 and had decided to “remove” Arafat – though without elaborating publicly precisely how this might be achieved. As if this were not enough, an Israeli newspaper quoted Avi Dichter, at the time Shin Bet director as saying that ‘it would be better to kill Arafat than exile him.
This week we learned that a Swiss institute, which recently examined Arafat’s clothing, had found “surprisingly” high levels traces of polonium-210, the same substance which killed former Russian spy, Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006. Surely such findings should also encourage MI5 to re-examine Litvinenko’s death and his close ties with Israel and the Russian Oligarchs. Is it possible that polonium -210 was, at the time, the lethal method of choice amongst Israeli assassins?
But a positive answer to this question leaves me only confused. What could have led Israel to the peculiar decision to nuke its prime enemies by planting polonium in their food? What could they have in mind when they decided to use a substance that can be provided by only a very few states and would leave radioactive traces forever? Do they really think that the Goyim and the Arabs are that stupid? I am afraid that the answer may as well be in the affirmative. Israel knows, and exults in the fact, that it gets away with murder – and quite easily too.
Still, we must here note that Israel has all along denied any involvement in Arafat’s death. On Wednesday, Avi Dichter, said that it was for Palestinians to investigate:
The body is in their hands. It is in Ramallah, and really, all the keys are in their hands.
Meanwhile Israel Army Radio confirmed that introducing polonium into food was the only way to kill someone with that particular poison and asked Dichter, whose agency had overall responsibility for monitoring the Palestinians, whether it would have been possible with Arafat.
You’re asking me as his cook?
was Dichter’s jocular answer.
Actually, it’s no joke. Israel certainly wasn’t the cook but is clearly in the frame for being the chef in this gastronomic debacle. Dichter continued: “We were focused on more serious things. Arafat’s food did not interest us. I think it interested those around him, in order, really, to keep his health up, as he was indeed known to be unwell. But the Shin Bet, or the State of Israel, was not involved in Yasser Arafat’s food.”
I agree with Dichter. It is more than likely that Israel wasn’t directly involved in the preparation Arafat’s final hummus, but we, nonetheless, should be concerned here with the strong possibility that Israel may have, probably thorough a third party, found a way to pepper Arafat’s food with the radioactive substance.
Pressed on the poisoning scenario, Ditcher said:
Yasser Arafat had many enemies, domestically and abroad. But let them investigate … The Palestinians know well how to investigate what goes on in their house. Let them investigate and find out.
Dichter is obviously correct, Arafat indeed had many enemies, but the obvious question here is how any of his enemies could put their hands on a radioactive substance available to just a few states. And I guess that we all know of one possible suspect – and so does Dichter
Recently I came across an interesting review of The Wandering Who, the book by Gilad Atzmon that has reached so far and wide that it might be called The Wandering Book.
The review is by one Stanley Heller. In the interest of full disclosure I will note that I do not know Heller, never heard of him before and never read anything by him, so any perception of bias in his favor on my part is unfounded. I did google his name and found a Stanley Heller who had signed an article on the site of a non-profit organization, WESPAC, a foundation that “connects the people of Westchester with a progressive agenda for the planet and its peoples.” Very impressive. The article by this Heller, called Time to Play Hardball, talks about activism on behalf of the Palestinian solidarity movement and recommends, among other meritorious actions, wearing a kuffiyeh because Jews also wore a yellow star. I decided this couldn’t be the same person as the more serious-minded reviewer.
I have read a few reviews of the The Wandering Who before, some by highly reputable scholars, intellectuals, and human rights activists, but even though they were all enthusiastic, they were also almost pedantically factual, and none struck me as so personally and emotionally engaged as this most sincere review. In fact I would say that this very quality, in excess, is also its weakness. The review suffers from a surfeit of sincerity.
Heller starts by confessing candidly that he hates the author, refused to read the book but wished very much to refute it. So he had to leaf through it to obtain some quotes to use. I put this down to my guess that Heller is a young and inexperienced writer or else he would not give away his predetermined conclusion in the first few lines.
Luckily this is compensated by another confession: Heller shares with the reader his ambition, which boils down to showing up those prominent academics and reputable human rights advocates for the fools they are to have been “mysteriously” bamboozled into praising the book. Say what you will, but this kind of boundless self-confidence – one Stanley Heller demolishing Baroud, Boyle, Cook, Falk, Mearsheimer, Mezevinsky, Petras, Qumsieh, and others like them – has a touching quality about it. It is like a 6th grader announcing that E = mc2 is wrong and he will prove it to you. You almost want to root for the underpuppy. His total self-confidence (detractors, not I, would call it chutzpah) makes you want to read on.
The review is made up of quotes lifted from the book in the sequential order of chapters and it is a minor weakness of élan that Heller’s intended refutations are less than substantial, like “Huh?” “Ridiculous,” “Pitiful,” “What rubbish!” or “sludge.”
He also claims he made himself read the book “so you don’t have to,” an unfortunate statement because it brings to mind unwelcome suggestions of censorship and book burning. Nevertheless, even if he made it a bit clumsily, the suggestion not to read the book is not all that naïve and without purpose from Heller’s personal point of view: the readers’ familiarity with the book might invite criticism of the review from nitpickers and accuracy maniacs.
It is true that some of Heller’s renditions of Atzmon’d concepts are misinterpretations or just plain false but to be fair, these only include concepts like “Jews,” “zionism,” “anti-zionism,” “anti-anti-zionism,” “Jewish lobby,” “Israel, or “anti-semitism.” He is completely accurate on others, like “jazz.”
The review would have benefited from completely omitting any reference to Weiniger himself or to Weiniger as discussed by Atzmon. A review is not profoundly marred if you delve into topics you know nothing about if you can fake it well, but if you do not, the reader –always a fickle customer–might become suspicious and wonder “What else does he discuss in here that he really knows nothing about?”
As he matures I am sure he will learn to avoid it.
Another minor lapse, and this makes me almost certain that my guess is right and he is indeed a very young writer, is that he does another “Weiniger gaffe” and gives his opinion that jews did not know they were jews until Hitler so informed them. It is on a par with his statement that the jews active in a human rights movement as jews are essential because they kosherize the non-jews, thus protecting them from accusations of anti-semitism. He thus trips himself and unintentionally lands in the category of “anti-zionists zionists.”
Most readers would be confused by his attempt to explain what “zionism’ is and by extension “anti-zionism” when he says Atzmon is ‘aiding’ zionism, but that is because Heller himself is confused and misses the irony of Atzmon’s “proud self-hater.”
Nevertheless I think that only trenchant and hasty critics would consider Heller’s first review bad. In fact it is a good beginning. It is made up of:
- misinterpreted quotes
- inaccurate statements (Atzmon’s classification, description and all references to Jews)
- arguments consisting of exclamations and interjections
- references to bibliography unknown to him.
If all of these were taken out, however, he would be left with a good framework to build a review on.
I am a firm believer that young writers should be encouraged and helped in their first attempts rather than excoriated for lapses and errors that are the “inherent diseases” of the childhood of a writing career.
Copyright deLiberation 2012
Their relationship with the Jewish community is a theme Searchlight return to when in difficulty, they feel that by manufacturing scare stories about, or exaggerating, anti-semitism, this will ensure a ready flow of funds from Jewish sources. The Union of Jewish Students (UJS) provides personnel to perform various tasks for Searchlight, although thankfully some of their number are aware (and horrified) of what Searchlight gets up to. I have elsewhere stated my suspicion about Searchlight producing/distributing anti-semitic propaganda, as well as the possible involvement of their personnel in cemetery desecrations.  One fascist hit-list circulating in 1993 contained not just details of Jewish students resident in Nottingham, but their family addresses elsewhere in the country (‘Sieg Redwatch’ p. 1). This doesn’t look like information that would have been available from just one or even two person’s stolen address books, but rather an extract from a far greater database, such as for example membership lists of the Union of Jewish Students. How might such information have passed into fascist hands? The most likely way is straightforward theft, although if we grant the possibility of discreet ‘leaking’ then Searchlight had the means, track record and motive: to keep the UJS ‘mustard keen’ in terms of providing shock troops for Searchlight activities.
The longest standing Jewish organisation in the UK is the ‘Board of Deputies of British Jews’ an inherently conservative body with extensive Establishment links. Their ‘Community Defence Organisation’ purports to monitor fascists, but their ‘intelligence-gathering’ capacity is minimal, seeming to consist of little more than the ability to phone two numbers: the Home Office and Searchlight. The evidence given by the Board to the Home Affairs Select Committee in 1993, the same one Searchlight tried to nobble, was (apart from detailed statistics on anti-semitic incidents) of poor quality and showed their lack of an independent research capacity, consisting mainly of reproductions of fascist documents! A more recent offering by Board Defence Director Mike Whine on the internet was similarly lacking in detailed original research.  I have it on good authority that (in conjunction with Searchlight) the board has taken an active part in smear campaigns against Greens including myself. Indeed the Board are [Page 28] so subordinate to Searchlight’s agenda that they have suppressed criticism of former Green Party member David Icke, who has been wandering around propagating the anti-Jewish forgery the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ as though it were fact, and getting large paying audiences to listen to him. That I have played a prominent part in the campaign to oppose him (not fitting in with their labelling me a fascist) has been reason enough for Searchlight to ignore the affair. But that is no good reason for the Board of Deputies and more recently the Jewish Chronicle to do the same.  There is no public branch of the US-based (and notorious spying group) the Anti-Defamation League in the UK (unlike many other countries): with the existence of Searchlight one is hardly needed. The ADL have never, to my knowledge, featured in Searchlight more than once or twice, and tiny uncritical mentions at that. Therefore, a reasonable working hypothesis is that Searchlight collaborates with the ADL behind the scenes, and is perhaps even (covertly) affiliated. Keeping it quiet would after all, make it easier for Searchlight to gather intelligence on US anti-fascists, to then be passed to the ADL or even the FBI directly. The FBI gets a very easy ride from Searchlight, much of their coverage of it/the US Right seems to verge on more or less blatant and unapologetic disinformation from state sources. 
source of original
John Esposito talks about Islamophobia in the U.S.A.
But, never mind about Islamophobia, Islam or Muslims because although it’s clear that Islam, Shariah and it’s adherents are evidently seen as a the only real threat to Israeli/American hegemony: The evidence for this being that most wars, invasions and occupations are taking place in Muslim lands, here on deLiberation the real topic that everyone likes to hear about and discuss is absolutely not Islam.
I thought that the majority of posters on deLiberation and especially the commentators would like this video because it confirms exactly the topic that they like to talk about most.