It sure fits the narrative doesn't it, Obama sending operatives to undermine the election because he (queue dark music) HATES NETANYAHU - - - - MUAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA.

Imagine if Jeb called on the right to mobilize because the blacks were being bussed into the polls.

It's not a pissy threat, it's a real threat. For those 40 years the US has used the veto to protect Israel, sometimes more for their interest than ours. It's important because Bibi was elected largely by gathering right wing votes and now those parties will look for actions that only exacerbate tension in the area.

That's not actually true, but reading the usual tabloids you'd certainly get that opinion.

I did the digging for you buck.

It was an unclassified report from 1987 on NATO and Israeli technical capabilities. The document never said they had a bomb but did describe activities that were intended to produce one.

A researcher found mention of the document in multiple public reports and filed a FOIA request. His contention is that since Israel never signed the NPT, the 86 billion $ of taxpayer aid since 1987 along with tens of millions in tax free donations sent back to Israel are illegal under The Symington Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

The DoD refused so he sued the government. After a lot of heel dragging a federal judge ordered the requested parts of the document to be released. It was reported the DoD was going to review the document with the Israeli government but it's not clear if this happened.

Considering how close the P5+1 are to signing a nuclear deal with Iran, highlighting an obvious double standard isn't exactly in Obama's interest. But it's sure fun to think so huh?

Did you research that while seated in first class or business ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not flying today. I did it over coffee.

This is a strange comment. So, only the "left wing" will erase tensions in the area? How have elections been gathered in the past 40 years? Have there been no tensions when left wingers were elected? Oh, that's right, the left wing kept giving away land . . . but, somehow, the tensions always remained and the left wing giveaways never satisfied the Palestinians. It seemed that the more they got, the more they wanted. And it never seemed to wash out from the Palestinian rhetoric the desire for the elimination of Israel.

The 40 years have been full of wars and never ending attacks even with multiple cease fires. I don't know how the Israeli right wingers are going to exacerbate this never ending tension--maybe a final war to end it? The "tension in the area" as you put it, does seem to be going in that direction. And that direction is not being guided by Israel or its right wingers, but by the Arabs and Muslim factions all on their own. And the average Palestinian would, at least in Western terms, be much safer and healthier in an Israeli state than in the aftermath of a regional conflagration in which Israel no longer existed. Of course, the Palestinians, or Muslims in general, don't operate through Western perspective. They have their own views and desires none of which really have room for Israelis. And we're supposed to believe that Netanyahu is a racist right winger who wants to oppress, or maybe get rid of Palestinians.

You forgot one .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh, I forgot, he's not a Muslim. So he would not be included in the Muslim factions.

More on Islamic Taqiyya and when it is used, and how " Muslims should preach peace when weak, war when strong":

Raymond Ibrahim | Friday Mar 27, 2015 9:50 AM
Obama Trusts ‘Word’ of Ayatollahs in Nuclear Negotiations

As Iran continues edging closer to developing nuclear weapons—a major threat to the entire Mideast region, especially longstanding U.S. ally Israel—U.S. President Obama has come to the aid of the Islamic Republic, by citing an Islamic fatwa no less. In a video recording posted on the White House’s website, Obama said, “Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop a nuclear weapon.”

This is the same Rouhani who, after recently showcasing Iran’s newly developed missiles, described his nation’s diplomatic talks with the U.S. as an active “jihad”: “Our negotiations with the world powers are a source of national pride. Yesterday [during the Iran-Iraq War], your brave generals stood against the enemy on the battlefield and defended their country. Today, your diplomatic generals are defending [our nation] in the field of diplomacy–this, too, is jihad.”

Other administration officials—such as Secretary of State John Kerry and Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes—have previously referred to the ayatollah’s reported fatwa in the context of the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran.

The Obama administration’s citation of this fatwa is utterly wrongheaded on many levels.

First, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya permits Muslims to deceive non-Muslims. Islamic prophet Muhammad himself regularly lied to his infidel enemies, often resulting in their murder (such as the case of The_Murder_of_Kab_Ashraf”). He also proclaimed that lying was permissible in three contexts, one being war. Moreover, throughout the centuries and due to historic circumstances (discussed here:http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/...-rules-of-war/ ), taqiyya became second nature to the Shia—the sect currently ruling Iran.

Then there is the fact that Islamic law takes circumstance into account. When Muhammad was weak and outnumbered in Mecca, he preached peace and tolerance (hence why Meccan Suras appear peaceful); when he became strong in Medina, he preached war and went on the offensive (hence why Medinan Suras are violent and intolerant). This dichotomy—preach peace when weak, wage war when strong—has been Islamic modus operandi for centuries.

Speaking of fatwas, Dr. Yusuf Burhami, a prominent Islamic cleric in Egypt, recently said that destroying churches in Egypt is permissible if not advisable—but not if doing so prompts Western infidels to intervene and occupy Egypt, which they could do “because the condition of Muslims in the current era is well known to the nations of the world—they are weak.” Burhami further added that circumstance is everything, “just as the prophet allowed the Jews to remain in Khaibar after he opened [conquered] it, once Muslims grew in strength and number, [second caliph] Omar al-Khattab drove them out according to the prophet’s command, ‘Drive out the Jews and Christians from the Peninsula.’”

And who can forget Yasser Arafat’s reference to Muhammad’s Hudaybiya pact? In 1994, soon after negotiating a peace treaty criticized as conceding too much to Israel, Arafat addressed an assembly of Muslims and said: “I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the [infidel] Quraysh in Mecca.” In other words, like Muhammad, Arafat gave his word only to annul it once his ranks became strong enough to go on the offensive.

In short, it’s all very standard for Islamic leaders to say they are pursuing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes while they are weaker than their infidel foes—as Iran is today—but once they acquire nukes the jihad can resume in earnest.

Then there is the fact that Shia theology is rife with apocalyptic aspirations. An August 2007 report compiled by the Congressional Research Service said: “Ahmadinejad [previous president of Iran] believes his mission is to prepare for the return of the 12th ‘Hidden’ Imam, whose return from occultation [i.e., “hiding”] would, according to Twelver Shi’ite doctrine, be accompanied by the establishment of Islam as the global religion.”

Like other Iranians, Ahmadinejad cited the eschatological (and canonical) hadith wherein Muhammad said: “The Hour [Judgment Day] will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and until the Jews hide behind the trees and rocks and the trees and rocks will say, ‘O Muslim, O Servant of God! Here are the Jews! Come and kill them!”

Indeed, during a recent speech, supreme leader Khamenei—whose fatwa Obama is now citing—boasted about Iran’s uranium enrichment, even as his military commanders shouted, “Allah Akbar. Khamenei is the leader. Death to the enemies of the leadership. Death to America. Death to England. Death to hypocrites. Death to Israel.”

Yet despite all this—despite the fact that Islamic doctrine mandates lying to infidels; despite the fact that the Shia—Iran’s leadership—have perfected taqiyya into an art; despite the fact that Islamic law holds that Muslims should preach peace when weak, war when strong; despite the fact that Iranian leadership openly boasts that its nuclear negotiations are a “jihad” against the infidel; despite the fact that Iran has previously been exposed developing uranium enrichments suitable for nuclear warheads—here is Obama and his administration relying on the “word” of the ayatollah of Iran.

wow...sounds just like progressive doctrine..."Progressive Taqiyya"...splains' a lot


so in this negotiation...there's no one telling the truth :rotf2:

I did not properly insert this link into the above article on taqiyya (which I have corrected). If you missed the correction, here is the link http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/...-rules-of-war/ It is fundamental to understanding any negotiations with Shia or Sunni Muslims who correctly practice their faith.

It's a long but interesting article, and well worth reading, in terms of understanding an important tenet of Islam.

Here is a very interesting tidbit from the above cited article which may shed some possible insight into the reported 10 year length of the nuclear agreement being negotiated with Iran:

"The perpetual nature of jihad is highlighted by the fact that, based on the 10-year treaty of Hudaybiya (628), ratified between Muhammad and his Quraysh opponents in Mecca, most jurists are agreed that ten years is the maximum amount of time Muslims can be at peace with infidels; once the treaty has expired, the situation needs to be reappraised."

The article is rich with insights into Islam's world view and its relation to non-Muslims. It can help penetrate some of the mysterious fog that masks the reason for Islamic true believers difficulty, from the Western perspective, of entering the modern world. Well worth the time to read it. http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/...-rules-of-war/

huh......soooo lying and deception are acceptable to promote an agenda/ideaology...and have over time become an acceptable part of the culture and even celebrated/elected to high office are those with the most forked of tongues....when weak or not in power play the victim card to deflect and move forward or preserve the agenda/ideaology and when strong or in power hammer the opposition and ignore their pleas for the same basic rights and that were claimed when weak all the while pushing an intolerant agenda creating even more victims in the region


yup....sounds familiar...was Saul Alynski a musilm extrmist?:rotf3:

I see, to the issue in Palestine is the complete responsibility of Muslims? That's perhaps the most short-sighted thing you've ever written...

Ironic you'd actually eclipse it with your posts on Taqiyya which take batchit to another level.

What's with all the hate?

Indeed, what's with all the hate, Spence--batchit, shortsighted?

Oh, maybe your just pulling a Dangles.

Quality reading material right here :hihi:

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borow...t-warns-mccain
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, it's almost funny. Unfortunately, rather than poking fun at some actual absurdity, it first creates the absurdity. Then it spins a made-up narrative intending to destroy with phony ridicule. It's half-wit slapschtick, mixed with political straw man nastiness, in hope of swaying or bolstering opinion, rather than merely being made to evoke laughter. Jon Stewart fans will love it.

What makes it hard to bust out in a guffaw, unless you like anything that ridicules that which you don't like, true or not, is not only the total fabrication, but the actual seriousness of the matter. And what's even more ridiculous is a bunch of half-wits will actually think McCain said that stuff.

Kinda like Fox News and msnbc watchers. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, it's just satire.

No kidding ! It's in the humor section.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, Spence, we shouldn't be concerned about the concept of a Eurasia, headed by Russia and China, being a serious threat to Western economic power? Let's all play golf. Or play a fiddle.

Vladimir Putin's Deputy Rogozin bragged to a TV show that Russia would develop “our huge EurAsia.”

http://www.inquisitr.com/2119177/vla...nt-need-visas/

And we are "negotiating" with Iran, a Russian ally which is predicted to be a partner in the "Eurasian" project.

And we are shrinking our military power.

I'm astounded that someone under US sanctions would lash out. Perhaps that says all it needs to right there.

As an aside, I was staring up in the Cologne Dom yesterday and might just have found God, or tourists. Not sure yet but it was pretty cool regardless.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Umm . . . I believe that "someone" lashed out before the imposition of sanctions--that's why, I would guess, the sanctions were imposed. Can't be "absolutely" sure. Never can tell . . . maybe the US just likes to dole out willy-nilly sanctions. Especially under the current administration.

And the Eurasian project had been under way well before the sanctions. And that includes the growth of military power by its two most important countries Russia and China, while the West depends more on diplomacy and economic "sanctions." That's why "someone" could brush off and laugh at the little bug bite "punishment" by a country and its European allies that he views as pusillanimous. He obviously didn't think there would be any military response to the invasion of Ukraine other than by the overmatched Ukrainians.

I'm guessing that "someone," might not fear much military resistance from the U.S or its European allies for the next two years after witnessing the near total reluctance of the current US administration to use troops for war. Suspect he doesn't fear drone attacks or air strikes since he has his own drones and plenty of air power as well.

Head in the sand may work for ostriches, but humans who try it usually get their butt kicked.

And, yeah, it's easier to find God in the beauty of ancient things (Cologne Dom being much older than the Constitution, BTW).

But it's more likely that a progressive would see tourists rather than God.

Were you there with family, or just business?

I think Russia fears our economic might much more than a military conflict we'll rightly avoid. He's just trying to play Cold War games...this isn't a sprint.

In Germany for work but trying to see some fun stuff. The Charlamagne exhibit in Aachen was very nice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why would any country fear U.S. economic might? Hasn't that might been a benefactor to the world? Rather than fearing our economy, shouldn't they be trying to imitate it? To join in the great party of economic kumbaya? Sort of a worldwide economic franchise similar, perhaps, to a major league franchise where all teams compete but are interdependent in striving for the same goal. The winner gets the accolades, but all are enriched.

On the other hand, if it were something to be feared but not emulated, something that was a barrier to a different goal, then it would have to be defeated or contained. Neither Russia nor China act as if they have the same goal as America. Nor do, other than Israel, the countries of the Middle East or other Islamic countries. Nor do various countries in Africa or South or Latin America. Even various countries in Europe lean toward different goals than we.

So, then, if something other than or beyond economic might are of prime importance to these other countries, does that not then diminish the importance of American economic might in achieving their goals? And if they view American economics as an obstacle to be overcome would they not resort to means other than such economics?

Would not military power and anti-U.S. political and economic alliances be a better means to obviate American economic might?

And isn't that exactly what the Russian and Chinese, et. al., Eurasian project with its growing alliances, including, SCO, BRICS, the Paris-Moscow-Beijing axis, and the Axis of Hope, etc. are about? And they are not in a sprint, but in for the marathon.

In the meantime, our economic power is increasingly overburdened with debt and leftist regulations, and our military is gradually shrinking. We are probably at a point where we couldn't effectively do the type of sprint which could have eradicated potential enemies while they were still weak. They appear to be growing stronger as we grow weaker. That would be OK if it were merely an appearance, and the reality was the opposite.

I "think" we should greatly strengthen our military might, shrink our national debt, let our economy grow organically rather than by government fiat (which actually restricts it), and re-instill an American pride in individual ability rather than the growing drift into dependence on government. That would also not be a sprint. It would take some time to re-establish that which created American economic, along with its military, power.

In the marathon rather than sprint, those who do not wish us well are probably comfortable with the socialistic direction our progressive governments lead us. The trajectory, in the long run, is all toward their direction.

But, do enjoy the great exhibits of old European grandeur. It may be fun stuff, and a harbinger of new great things to come.

Great summation, detbuch, unfortunately it seems we have too few with enough commonsense to comprehend it.

Putin Threatens America with Nuclear Annihilation

By Cliff Kincaid July 28, 2015 6:46 am

The nation is fiercely debating the Iran nuclear deal and the significance of the Ayatollah’s “death to America” tweets when the real problem is Iran’s sponsor, Russia, and its lunatic ruler, Vladimir Putin. By controlling the media, killing off the opposition, and smearing Ukrainian freedom fighters as Nazis, the former KGB colonel has his country worked into a collective frenzy over a concocted Western threat. Some experts believe Russia is preparing for nuclear war on a global scale. If Putin carries out his threats, America is no more.

In this case, the U.S. is facing not only a nuclear weapons program, which is the case with Iran, but what our top generals are calling an “existential threat” to our survival as a nation.

As the National Institute for Public Policy documents in the report, “Foreign Nuclear Developments: A Gathering Storm,” Russia has a new military doctrine that anticipates using nuclear weapons, and the regime has embarked on “a massive strategic modernization program to deploy new nuclear weapons and delivery systems.”

Not only that, but Russia has a ballistic missile defense to use against us.

Geopolitical analyst Jeff Nyquist tells Accuracy in Media, “The Russians became angry and threatening when NATO tried to build a very modest missile defense system to stop an Iranian missile. Yet Russia has over 10,000 dual purpose SAM/ABMs for defense against our missiles and will be deploying a new ABM prototype next year.”

He adds, “Russia has potential war winning advantages over the U.S. and NATO—not necessarily in the number of nuclear weapons but in the number of its ABM batteries, and the upgrading of these batteries with a new generation of interceptor rockets while the American side makes no effort in this direction. The U.S. ABMs in Alaska and California would be lucky to stop 12 Russian warheads.”

Despite the preoccupation with Iran’s nuclear program, Iran currently has nothing of that nature which can threaten the homeland of the United States. Yet, Russia can obliterate the United States, a fact that has been highlighted recently by no less than three top American generals. The term, “existential threat,” has been used repeatedly to describe the Russian challenge. That term means the Russians can destroy the United States as a nation.

Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford, nominated to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, “If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, I’d have to point to Russia.”

His statement, made during his Senate confirmation hearing on July 9, got a significant amount of media attention. Similar warnings came from Army General Mark A. Milley, commander of U.S. Forces Command, who has been nominated to become the next Army chief of staff, and Air Force General Paul Selva, nominated to become Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

Dunford and the other generals acknowledge the real or potential nuclear threats from Iran, North Korea, and China. But it’s Russia that is deemed an “existential threat.” It is the most significant.

Some conservatives have been complaining that patriotic military officers are being purged from the Armed Forces. Well, it appears that the purge missed Generals Dunford, Milley, and Selva. These generals are taking a risk by going against the conventional wisdom of the Obama administration. Indeed, the White House and the State Department have gone out of their way to say that the Obama administration does not agree with the assessment that Russia is an existential threat to the United States.

For the generals to go public in this manner—and to contradict the official stance of the Obama administration—suggests that the threat from Russia is very real indeed, and may be more serious than they are willing to publicly acknowledge.

When you consider how the Iran nuclear deal came about, you begin to realize how serious it is. Obama actually thanked Putin for bringing it about.

The CNN story, “Obama, Putin congratulate each other for Iran deal,” demonstrates the nature of the problem. Although the story is designed to highlight the alleged positive roles Obama and Putin played in the deal, CNN reported that in a readout of the conversation between the two leaders, “the White House said Obama thanked Putin for Russia’s role in the Iran nuclear negotiations.”

Thanked Putin? This demonstrates something worse than the deal itself and the real nature of the Iranian threat. Putin should thank Obama because the U.S. is helping Iran, Russia’s client state, get tens of billions of dollars in international financial aid. Down the line, Russia gets U.S. approval to supply more weapons to the anti-American regime.

Iran is certainly a potential nuclear threat to Israel, the so-called “little Satan.” But the U.S. is the “Great Satan,” and our biggest nuclear threat at the current time is Russia, as our top military officers have said. Yet, Obama is treating Putin as an ally.

Israel and its defenders have to come to grips with the fact that Iran is a threat to the Jewish state, the region, and the world because of its Russian sponsorship. Iran can’t be viewed in isolation, apart from Russia. Indeed, Iran is considered to be part of a “strategic alliance” with Russia.

As we have noted on several occasions, the Iranian Ayatollah, Ali Khamenei, is KGB-trained, having been “educated” at the KGB’s Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow. This means he is under Russian influence, if not an agent.

Obama has a blind spot regarding threats from the Islamic world, and that includes Iran. But his unwillingness to face up to the Russian threat, which is more serious than any on the face of the earth today, puts the very existence of the United States in jeopardy.

Remember that Obama mocked Mitt Romney’s statement during the 2012 campaign that Russia was our geopolitical adversary. Obama hasn’t learned anything, despite the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He keeps refusing to supply Ukraine with heavy weapons to defend themselves. Praising the Russians for their role in the Iran deal signals something worse than just incompetence. It appears that Russia is exercising some sort of control over the Obama administration.

We got a taste of that control when it was reported that, on Independence Day, the Kremlin announced that Putin had sent Happy July 4th greetings to Obama. We only later learned that Putin, on the same day, had also sent nuclear-capable Russian bombers off the coast of California that had to be intercepted by American aircraft.

This duplicity is another sign of the lunatic mindset of the former KGB spy running the show in Moscow. This nuclear blackmail is much more serious than a tweet from the Iranian Ayatollah showing Obama with a gun to his head. Putin has a nuclear gun pointed at America and we have practically no defense against it.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.

Well, at least if you're going to cite a conspiracy theorist you picked a good one.

He's very, very good. And he even offers some substance rather than just an easy, drive-by, substanceless, snide comment. The cite is food for thought . . . and actual discussion . . . if thought and discussion are provided.

A bibliography of more "conspiracies" listed by one of the authorities that the article cites:

http://www.nipp.org/publications/dow...les/year-2015/