Those “Iranian” Bombings

By Michael Hoffman
www.revisionisthistory.org

Soon after India agreed to buy Iranian oil and circumvent western sanctions against Iran, a car bomb attributed to Iran was detonated in India.

Today in Thailand, on China's doorstep, explosions are being blamed on an "Iranian national." Until now, China has refused to support a war on Iran.

Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Ramin Mehmanparast, stated: "Israel has bombed its embassies in New Delhi, India and Tbilisi, Georgia to tarnish Iran's friendly ties with the host countries," adding, "Israel perpetrated the terrorist actions to launch psychological warfare against Iran."

False flag operations are a means by which the secret services of nations like the Israeli entity and the US Federal government rule the world. The Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and the 9/11 terror attacks are but two examples of this.

The media are complicit by reporting the bombings in India and Thailand according to the American/Israeli script, rather than stating the fact that the Mossad is an organization known to have mastered false flag "black ops," and then launching an investigation into the likelihood that the recent attacks attributed to Iran are the work of the CIA and/or the Mossad.

Mossad Commander Tamir Pardo

The psychological warfare includes constantly maintaining the American people in a pressure cooker of extreme anxiety over the likelihood of an imminent terror attack by supposed Iranian agents operating in the U.S. 

Classic war propaganda from Mossad’s mouthpiece: The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 14, 2012

This dose of ludicrous fear-mongering comes in the form of a nearly half-page editorial in the Wall Street Journal titled, “The Iranian Threat to New York City.” Like 9 years ago with Iraq, the media drums of war are again beating, this time for destroying the Iranian nation based on false flag bombs planted by the Mossad and CIA and blamed on Iran. 

The author, Mitchell D. Silber, the New York City Police Department’s chief of intelligence, writes the following gibberish: “As the West’s conflict with Iran over its nuclear program heats up, New York City — with its large Jewish population — becomes an increasingly attractive target.” This rhetoric is almost identical to Zionist propaganda in the New York Times ten years ago asserting a “mushroom cloud” over the U.S. if we didn’t stop Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Silber does not tell his frightened Wall Street Journal readers that Iran’s own Judaic community, which is entirely at the mercy of the government, lives in comfort and safety. Silber is giving advance cues to the American people so that if Mossad plants a bomb in a Judaic neighborhood in New York, the public will immediately surmise, “Iran’s behind it!” This is lynch mob thinking which the Wall Street Journal ought to denounce rather than enhance.

Record of Terror by U.S. and Israelis Dwarf Alleged Acts by Iran

Harvard University Prof. Steven M. Walt observes: "...two very capable states -- the United States and Israel -- threatening to attack a country that hardly seems worth the effort. The U.S. and Israel together spend more than $700 billion each year on their national security establishments; Iran spends about $10 billion. The U.S. and Israel have the most advanced military hardware in the world; Iran's weapons are mostly outdated and lack spare parts. The U.S. and Israeli militaries are well-educated and very well-trained; not true of Iran.

"The United States has thousands of nuclear weapons and Israel has several hundred, while Iran has a vast arsenal of -- zero. Iran does have a nuclear enrichment program (which is the reason for all the war talk), but the most recent National Intelligence Estimates have concluded that Iran does not presently have an active nuclear weapons program.

"The United States has several dozen military bases in Iran's immediate vicinity; Iran has exactly none in the Western hemisphere. The United States has powerful allies in every corner of the world; Iran's friends include a handful of minor nonstate actors like Hezbollah or minor-league potentates like Bashar al Assad (who's not looking like an asset these days) or Hugo Chávez.

"Moreover, the United States has fought four wars since 1990. It has bombed, invaded or occupied a half dozen countries in that period, leading to the deaths of thousands of people.

"Israel has been colonizing the West Bank since 1967, it invaded and occupied much of Lebanon from 1982 to 1999, and its armed forces pummeled Lebanon again in 2006 and Gaza in 2008-09.

"Prominent U.S. politicians have repeatedly called for "regime change" in Iran, and U.S. government officials now report that Israel has been murdering civilian scientists in Iran, in cahoots with the MEK, a terrorist organization that is still on the State Department's terrorist "watchlist." Iran's past conduct is far from pure, but it has done nothing remotely similar in recent years..."

As Prof. Walt points out, the United States and Europe are not actually threatened by Iran, even as we terrorize the Iranians with crippling sanctions, sabotage of their infrastructure and assassination of their scientists. All of these acts are, as Rep. Ron Paul has stated, acts of war.

Iran does threaten the status quo in two areas: in Palestine, where the rest of the world, including the Arab world, are sunk in complacency concerning the periodic masacres which the Israelis inflict and the ongoing theft and occupation of Palestinian land; and in countries such as Bahrain and Saudi Arabia which viciously repress Shiite populations. In Bahrain the Shia are a majority tyrannized by a Sunni minority.

Neither situation is any of our business. We should be sending medical and humanitarian aid and goodwill and cultural ambassadors to all sides in the Middle East, and otherwise taking a hands off approach to these never-ending religious wars which are none of our affair, especially in view of our "budget deficit."

Thanks to a Zionist-dominated American media however, and church leaders who teach that contemporary Israelis are genetic descendants of Abraham and the Israeli state is a Biblical (rather than a Talmudic) nation, we have a U.S. Congress which is Israeli-occupied territory.

Not all the fault is with the Traditional Enemies of Truth. For the past thirty years the Iranians and Syrians have done almost nothing to cultivate influence over the propagation and marketing of news and information in the United States. As a result of their neglect, quite naturally their enemies have obtained a monopoly on reporting conflicts to the American people.

If Iran does become a threat it will be due to the fact that we made them a threat and goaded them into attacking us, just as the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt did to Japan on the eve of America's entry into World War Two (cf. Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War, edited by George H. Nash; and Day of Deceit by Robert B. Stinnett).

We’ve forgotten the lies that prodded us into war just nine years ago

In a speech by then President George W. Bush of October 7, 2002, Bush cited alleged Iraqi chemical, biological and nuclear programs - as well as concerns about possible Iraqi connections to international terrorist groups. With respect to how close Iraq was to developing a nuclear weapon, Bush said that "we don't know exactly." He went on to state that "If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year."

In the face of requests that the U.S. provide further evidence in support of its position that Iraq was failing to comply with U.N. resolution 1441 and that a resort to military force would be necessary unless Iraq's behavior changed, Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003. The bulk of Powell's remarks involved his presentation of "additional information about what the United States knows about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, as well as Iraq's involvement with Al Qaeda associates. In his February 5 presentation to the U.N. Security Council, Secretary of State Colin Powell charged that Iraq had begun constructing mobile facilities to produce biological weapons.

On September 8, 2002, the New York Times published a front page article by Michael Gordon and Judith Miller about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction which was one of the most serious cases of misreporting in the entire run-up to the war. The piece provided a major boost to the administration’s case for war and proved to be wrong in almost every detail.

Michael Massing writes: "It was the prospect of Saddam Hussein’s getting an atomic bomb that caused the most fear about his regime, and it was this fear that the Bush administration most sought to fan as it pushed the case for war. Yet it had little concrete evidence to show that Iraq was actively seeking a bomb. Enter the New York Times. In that September 8 story, Gordon and Miller, leaning heavily on Bush officials, offered the aluminum tubes as evidence that Iraq was actively seeking a nuclear weapon. The article did not simply raise this as a possibility — it asserted it in bold and unequivocal language. 'US Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts' ran the headline. Iraq, the lead declared, 'has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb, Bush administration officials said today."

Another New York Times report by government mouthpieces Gordon and Miller, published on Sept. 13 was heavily slanted to the CIA’s position. It iced out critics of the claims that Iraq was trying to gain nuclear weapons and insulted the critics, trivializing and dismising them. Prior to Sept. 13 David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security warned Judith Miller concerning her support for CIA claims. He states: "...an administration official was quoted as saying that 'the best' technical experts and nuclear scientists at laboratories like Oak Ridge supported the CIA assessment. These inaccuracies made their way into the story despite several discussions that I had with Miller on the day before the story appeared — some well into the night. In the end, nobody was quoted questioning the CIA’s position, as I would have expected."

Massing notes "...the Times‘s heavy reliance on official sources and its dismissal of other sources...on the critical issue of whether Iraq was actively seeking a nuclear bomb, the International Atomic Energy Administration (IAEA) had found strong indications that it was not. And how did the Times cover these key statements? With two short, pro forma stories buried inside the A section...The Times ran three front-page stories on Colin Powell's speech to the U.N. Security Council speech, one by Michael Gordon...Gordon offered unqualified praise for Powell's assertions about Iraq’s WMD. 'The case Mr. Powell presented today regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction' was 'remorseless,' Gordon wrote. “Even the skeptics,” he added, 'had to concede that Mr. Powell’s presentation had been an important milestone in the debate. Critics may try to challenge the strength of the administration’s case and they will no doubt argue that inspectors be given more time. But it will be difficult for the skeptics to argue that Washington’s case against Iraq is based on groundless suspicions and not intelligence information.'

"On the nuclear issue, Gordon wrote, Powell 'presented new details to buttress the administration’s case;' in particular, he cited Powell’s claim that the United States 'has intercepted aluminum tubes that had a special coating that would make them useful for making centrifuges to enrich uranium.' Remarkably, Gordon did not see fit to mention the IAEA findings that undermined this claim and that he, Gordon, had twice written about in the previous month. So, at this key juncture in the debate on Iraq, Gordon uncritically transmitted a key US claim, one that the inspectors had effectively discredited. In the light of such reporting, is it any surprise that the IAEA findings had such limited impact?"

Doomed to repeat ruinous scripts from past wars

The American people continue to maintain faith in the credibility of the corporate media and as a result of this willful gullibility, they are on a nightmarish merry-go-round, doomed to repeat ruinous scripts from past wars like the war with Iraq, which was fought on the basis of a barrel of (now forgotten) lies about weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi tries to Al Qaeda.

Any armed resistance against Israeli occupation on the part of national liberation organizations such as Hezbollah, which years ago liberated the El Khiam concentration camp in Lebanon from the control of the Israeli proxies who ran that hellhole, is considered "terrorism." In the eyes of the West the sacred nation of fraudsters who deceitfully call themselves "Israel" cannot be opposed by force of arms. Shiite Islam views the Israelis as Nazis and uses the same tactics against them which the much hallowed partisans of World War Two employed against the Germans.

America's Talmudic mentality will not entertain the analogy however: bombing German Nazis is considered heroic; bombing Israeli Nazis is regarded as the lowest form of demonic evil. Unfortunately for the Zionist occupiers of the U.S. government and media, much of the rest of the world doesn't buy this Talmudic double-standard.

We doubt that the recent spate of bombings on the doorstep of China and Russia, and in India's backyard, will be viewed by the governments of those nations as Iranian in origin.

What a coincidence that the three nations most sympathetic to Iran are suddenly experiencing "Iranian" bombings within or near their territory.

Copyright ©2012 www.revisionisthistory.org

Hoffman is the author of Judaism Discovered and Judaism's Strange Gods, and co-author of The Israeli Holocaust Against the Palestinians. He wrote the introduction and compiled the annotated bibliography for Johann Andreas Eisenmenger's The Traditions of the Jews. Hoffman edits Revisionist History newsletter. His work is supported solely through donations from readers and the sale of his books, recordings and newsletters.

***

Al Qaeda’s massacre of Christians in Iraq was timed to help Israelis

Editor’s note: Someday, probably far in the future, there will be a public revelation in the corporate media that "Al Qaeda” is a false flag operation, created, shepherded, and managed at the top, by certain western intelligence agencies.

*****

Al-Qaeda’s Christian Massacre: Aiding and Abetting the Occupation of Palestine

by Maidhc Ó Cathail / Dissident Voice | November 20th, 2010

If we are to believe the voice on those Osama bin Laden tapes, the elusive al-Qaeda leader cares deeply about Palestine. Yet the actions of the terrorist network he supposedly still directs all too often belie its statements of concern for their “brothers” under Israeli occupation.

The massacre of Iraqi Christians at Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad also makes one wonder about claims that the group has “a great sense of timing.” The slaughter of Catholic Mass-goers occurred just one week after church leaders from across the Middle East had forcefully condemned Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories.

More than 200 members of 14 different churches had gathered in Rome for a papal synod to address concerns about Christian emigration from the region. However, as one commentator observed, “Time and again, they turned the discussions … towards the Palestinian question.”

In their final communiqué, the bishops urged the international community to apply UN Security Council resolutions and take “the necessary legal steps to put an end to the occupation of the different Arab territories.” Significantly, they charged the Israeli occupation with causing tensions that have led to the exodus of Christians from the Middle East.

In a follow-up news conference, the archbishop in charge of the committee that drafted the communiqué, Cyrille Salim Bustros, rejected any biblical justification for the Zionist project. “The concept of the promised land cannot be used as a base for the justification of the return of Jews to Israel and the displacement of Palestinians,” he said. “Sacred scripture should not be used to justify the occupation by Israel of Palestine.”

Not surprisingly, Tel Aviv was none too pleased with this serious challenge to the legitimacy of the self-described Jewish state. The following day, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon issued a statement condemning the bishops. The synod, he said, had been “hijacked by an anti-Israel majority,” turning it into “a forum for political attacks on Israel in the best history of Arab propaganda.” In particular, his government was “appalled” by Archbishop Bustros’ “outrageous comments,” describing them as “a libel against the Jewish people and the State of Israel.”

One week later, the Anti-Defamation League sought to enlist Pope Benedict XVI to Israel’s side. Expressing condolences over the Baghdad killings, ADL leaders asked the pope to “join together to eliminate all terrorism in the name of religion” and “to use the Church’s moral authority to prevent Israel from being made a pariah by its enemies.”

But with the Israeli occupation under such censure from Rome, it was a rather odd time for avowed supporters of the Palestinian cause to slaughter Catholics in the Middle East. Indeed, many Iraqi Muslims harbour “suspicions” about the shadowy al-Qaeda front’s targeting of “essentially non-players” in the country’s post-invasion sectarian strife.

Indeed, if anyone benefited from the church massacre it was Israel. Reminiscent of the Zionist underground’s attacks on Iraqi Jews in the 1950s, this assault on the Christian minority was clearly designed to encourage them to flee the country where they had lived in relative peace and prosperity for two millennia.

The removal of a Christian presence from the Muslim-dominated region would eliminate the model of coexistence as a viable alternative to the “clash of civilizations” view of the world. “By focusing attention on a direct and eternal conflict between the West and Islam,” M. Shahid Alam argues in his new book, the clash thesis aims “to acquit Israel of serving as the chief source and conduit of this conflict.”

Moreover, the massacre lent plausibility to the Israeli narrative on why Christians are leaving the Middle East. In a 2006 report by the hawkishly pro-Israel Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, titled “The Christian Exodus from the Middle East,” senior fellows Jonathan Adelman and Agota Kuperman concluded: “The single greatest cause of this emigration is radical Islam.”

Ironically, it was a representative from Baghdad at the synod who had suggested a way to encourage Middle East emigrants to return to Palestine. Armenian Archbishop Emmanuel Dabbaghian proposed that every bishop should make an annual visit to the Holy Land. “The influx of pilgrims to the Holy Land,” he said, “would convince the inhabitants who have emigrated to return to their homeland.” Given the apprehension about “the Arab demographic threat,” such a development would be viewed with trepidation in Tel Aviv.

“Israel, the Jewish State, is predicated on a decisive and stable Jewish majority of at least 70 percent,” Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, wrote in a 2009 article in Commentary magazine. “Any lower than that and Israel will have to decide between being a Jewish state and a democratic state.” Still, it’s an improvement on the “at least 80 percent Jews” that David Ben-Gurion said would be necessary for “a viable and stable state” on the eve of the premeditated ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Muslims and Christians.

In contrast to al-Qaeda’s efforts to drive a wedge between Islam and Christianity, the solidarity between the world’s two largest religions in Palestine poses a real threat to the Israeli occupation.
Sabeel, an ecumenical grassroots liberation theology movement among Palestinian Christians, in its “Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism,” affirms “that Palestinians are one people, both Muslim and Christian” and rejects “all attempts to subvert and fragment their unity.”

Couldn’t the Baghdad church massacre also be seen as an attempt to “subvert and fragment” Palestinian unity? With “brothers” like al-Qaeda, who needs enemies?

*****