DO IRAQI LIVES MATTER? Are Those Voting For Biden Voting For The “Supreme International Crime”?

Bush-Biden Attack On Baghdad Iraq, 2003: Shock and Awe!

Charles Manson was an American criminal and cult leader. In mid-1967, he formed what became known as the “Manson Family”. His followers committed nine murders at four locations in July and August 1969. The Los Angeles County district attorney believed that Manson intended to start a “race war“. In 1971, Manson was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder for the deaths of seven people. The prosecution conceded that Manson never literally ordered the murders, but they contended that his ideology constituted an OVERT ACT OF CONSPIRACY. Manson was sentenced to the death penalty for this conspiracy. So Manson’s influence killed nine, and he was condemned to capital punishment. If he had conspired to kill three millions, would he have been nominated to the presidency?

As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when the vote for a war of aggression against Iraq was cast, Biden was at the forefront of the effort to attack Iraq in 2002 and 2003. Biden had set-up a commission to invent reasons for invading Iraq.{“type”:”block”,”srcClientIds”:[“7cbd14bd-7bb3-494b-bbe7-69802f809141″],”srcRootClientId”:””} 

The US government called this sort of massacre, “Shock And Awe”. Plutocratic media has been removing pictures of the bombing of Baghdad by the US in 2003 recently. There is probably no desire to remember this tragedy where Biden was arguably the second most important perpetrator, in the drive towards war, only behind President W Bush himself… Of course Biden later tried to forget the whole thing, and the plutocratic media has helped him that way.

Please consider carefully what this establishment of a commission to invade Iraq means. Biden’s drive to war was not a silly off the cuff remark, or an out of context edited statement, or a silly tweet storm, or a joke. Justifying the invasion of Iraq by carefully invented, vicious lies was Biden’s purposeful main policy and activity for  at least ten months… The invasion of Iraq killed at least two million Iraqis. Upper estimates are up to 3.5 millions.  The war is in a quiet phase now, but it is still going on, and could flare up any time.

Around 10,000 US citizens died (nearly half of them soldiers; the US military used a lot of civilian contractors). And all this mayhem for what exactly? 

At first sight, the attack on Iraq was just to satisfy the inner urges of the three most crucial US leaders at that time (President W. Bush and his two “Democratic” accomplices, Biden and Pelosi.) I call this criminal. War criminal. As we will see, there is a much broader and deeper motivation. That motivation became clearer in the fullness of time. Actually the deep motivation for the Iraq invasion animated the most major US policy in the two decades following the US invasion and mayhem in Iraq. The mayhem and wholesale destruction was no happenstance, as it was made to appear. In truth, it was too well organized, not to have been a plan.

The day the war commenced, Biden told CNN: “There’s a lot of us who voted for giving the president the authority to take down Saddam Hussein if he didn’t disarm. And there are those who believe, at the end of the day, even though it wasn’t handled all that well, we still have to take him down.” Who are these “us” Biden is talking about? The “us” from the US Deep State…

Stephen Johnson, a US citizen, and a friend, intervened, to re-establish what passes in the USA for sanity, the madness of the crowd. He wrote: “Calling Biden a war criminal is plainly nuts, so you’re losing credibility with me.”

Well, I am driven by facts, not by whether people have faith in me, as if I were Jesus Christ, who needed the comfort of the crowd to feel good about himself. I have written extensively about the US aggression against Iraq for more than a decade. The Guardian gave a nice synopsis of my position in:

“Joe Biden championed the Iraq war. Will that come back to haunt him now?” By Mark Weisbrot”

“The Iraq war has been a prominent, even decisive issue, in recent US presidential elections. That will make Biden’s history a liability. Mon 17 Feb 2020

BIDEN DID VASTLY MORE THAN JUST VOTE FOR THE WAR. Yet his role in bringing about that war remains mostly unknown or misunderstood by the public.

When the war was debated and then authorized by the US Congress in 2002, Democrats controlled the Senate and Biden was chair of the Senate committee on foreign relations. Biden himself had enormous influence as chair and argued strongly in favor of the 2002 resolution granting President Bush the authority to invade Iraq.

“I do not believe this is a rush to war,” Biden said a few days before the vote. “I believe it is a march to peace and security. I believe that failure to overwhelmingly support this resolution is likely to enhance the prospects that war will occur …”

BUT HE HAD A POWER MUCH GREATER THAN HIS OWN WORDS. He was able to choose all 18 witnesses in the main Senate hearings on Iraq. And he mainly chose people who supported a pro-war position. They argued in favor of “regime change as the stated US policy” and warned of “a nuclear-armed Saddam sometime in this decade”. That Iraqis would “welcome the United States as liberators” And that Iraq “permits known al-Qaida members to live and move freely about in Iraq” and that “they are being supported”.

The lies about al-Qaida were perhaps the most transparently obvious of the falsehoods created to justify the Iraq war. As anyone familiar with the subject matter could testify, Saddam Hussein ran a secular government and had a hatred, which was mutual, for religious extremists like al-Qaida. But Biden did not choose from among the many expert witnesses who would have explained that to the Senate, and to the media.

Biden’s selling points as a candidate often lead with his reputation for foreign policy experience and knowledge. But Iraq in 2002 was devastated by economic sanctions, had no weapons of mass destruction, and was known by even the most pro-war experts to have no missiles that could come close to the United States. The idea that this country on the other side of the world posed a security threat to America was more than far-fetched. The idea that the US could simply invade, topple the government, and take over the country without provoking enormous violence was also implausible. It’s not clear how anyone with foreign policy experience and expertise could have believed these ideas.

The Guardian adds: “Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat, and still a Senator in 2020, was on the Senate intelligence committee at the time. Durbin was astounded by the difference between what he was hearing there and what was being fed to the public. “The American people were deceived into this war,” he said…

The resolution granting President Bush the authority to start the invasion of Iraq, which Biden pushed through the Senate, was a major part of that deception. So, too, was the restricted testimony that Biden allowed. The resolution itself contained deceptive language about a number of pretexts for the war, including al-Qaida and weapons of mass destruction that Iraq did not have.”

• Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC. He is the director of Worth the Price? Joe Biden and the Launch of the Iraq War (2020)

Weisbrot finishes his article this way, re-hashing essays of mine written since 2003… But the truth is worth re-hashing, always, when it is most significant:

“The Iraq war has generally been seen as one of the worst US foreign policy blunders in decades. It fueled the spread of terrorism and destabilized the Middle East and parts of north Africa. “Isil is a direct outgrowth of al-Qaida in Iraq, that grew out of our invasion,” noted President Obama.

More than 4,500 US soldiers, and nearly as many US military contractors, lost their lives; tens of thousands were wounded, with hundreds of thousands more suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Estimates of Iraqi deaths run as high as 1 million.

At the very least, Biden should explain why he played such a major role in winning the authorization from Congress for President Bush to wage this disastrous war.”

***

Was Biden’s Attack On Iraq Criminal?

When considering if a criminal act happened during a violent action, one has to look at the motivation of the suspect. That’s called Mens Rea in Roman, and contemporary law. It is the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused. In the case of the legal person known as the USA, there was a blatant criminal motivation: fracking. Revealingly, the Obama-Biden administration made that motivation blatant.

The US attack on Iraq occurred without a clear UN mandate… because of the frantic efforts of the French Republic… which has the longest historical view: France was a driver of history against extravagant savagery, for 15 centuries.

Biden’s criminal act is not that of a simple vote and arguments in favor of invading Iraq, as Senator Hillary Clinton did. No, Biden invented the entire big lie which Bush used, and made the US media run with it. 

What are those who claim they intend to vote for Biden, and are exposed to the preceding say? It’s hard for Trump haters to accuse Trump this time (Trump opposed the Iraq invasion, so did I. I got insulted, lost all my friends, got banned from the New York Times… This is when my attitude to Trump started to change, because, to oppose the invasion of Iraq in 2003 from inside the USA, one needed to have more than guts, but also lots of brains and self-confidence)

They can’t accuse Trump, but they can blame the victim. Stephen Jones: “For the record, it was Saddam Hussein that first claimed he had WMDs. Unfortunately, few in the Cheney-Bush administration wanted peace over profits.”

Unwittingly, Mr. Jones proved my point. Which profits? Invading a country to exploit its resources is a very well defined war crime. Even for the brutal US Deep State, such a gross violation would have been too much, so it was never the real plan. So, if there couldn’t be any profit made in Iraq itself, the profits could only be made in the USA itself where Cheney, ex-CEO of oil fracking giant Halliburton was massively invested.

For the record too: Saddam lied for internal reasons, but he knew that the Americans knew he had NO Weapons of Mass Destruction whatsoever… And that was confirmed by the UN inspectors going all around Iraq and finding none. So the Bush administration claimed that the weapons, and the laboratories, were on trucks and were moving around. No doubt Biden and Pelosi smiled and clang champagne glasses together about that grotesque fairy tale lie, fostered by their errant boy, General Powell at the UN.

***

Nuremberg Jurisprudence: WAR OF AGGRESSION IS THE SUPREME INTERNATIONAL CRIME:

In the judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, “War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. TO INITIATE A WAR OF AGGRESSION, THEREFORE, IS NOT ONLY AN INTERNATIONAL CRIME; IT IS THE SUPREME INTERNATIONAL CRIME differing only from other war crimes in that it CONTAINS WITHIN ITSELF THE ACCUMULATED EVIL OF THE WHOLE.“[1][2] .

The United States of America is then asked to vote for an accomplice and perpetrator of the “Supreme International Crime”. 

***

Manson’s ideology led to the murder of nine people, from a criminal conspiracy. He was sentenced to death, but he didn’t plan or order the murders. 

How many people died in Iraq because of the US attack? Deliberately, the US military refused to count the bodies. Says even the plutocratic Washington Post, a Trump hating newspaper owned by global monopolist plutocrat Bezos: 

“15 years after the Iraq War began, the death toll is still murky”

By Philip Bump, March 20, 2018:

Tens of thousands of people died fighting in the Iraq War, which began 15 years ago Tuesday. Nearly 5,000 of them were U.S. service members. Tens of thousands were insurgents battling the transitional Iraqi government put in place after the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

But that figure obscures the actual number of deaths attributable to the conflict. During the war and during the Islamic State militant group’s occupation of as much as a third of the country in recent years, the number of deaths runs into the hundreds of thousands, including civilians killed as a result of violence and, more broadly, those who died because of the collapse of infrastructure and services in Iraq resulting from the ongoing conflict

The Washington Post, and top US universities are owned, directly or not, figuratively, or literally, by US plutocracy. US plutocracy wanted to attack Iraq, to become wealthier and more powerful, so it had interest to underestimate the number of people killed by the US attack. Iraq Body Count, for example, counts only the death appearing in English speaking papers (that’s around 300,000). Studies in The Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine, also infeodate to US and global plutocracy recognized around 700,000 killed by 2006 from the invasion. A general overview by (plutocratic) MIT explains why the numbers published are just a fraction of the real number of deaths (they stop there, lest they displease their wealthy sponsors). Even (plutocratic) Brown University agrees that when the large city of Mosul was retaken, dozens of thousands died. But they have not been counted, observes Brown: most civilian victims were pulverized or returned to the atmosphere after combustion, and their ashes dispersed. 

An Iraqi Kurdish intelligence report estimated that at least 40,000 civilians were killed in the bombardment of Mosul alone, with many more bodies still buried in the rubble.  A recent project to remove rubble and recover bodies in just one neighborhood found 3,353 more bodies, of whom only 20% were identified as ISIS fighters and 80% as civilians. Another 11,000 people in Mosul are still reported missing by their families.

All in all, the Iraq invasion led by Bush, Biden, and authorized by their accomplice Pelosi, killed at least 2.5 million people. Because Pelosi, as Ranking Member of the US Congress Intelligence Committee knew explicitly that the pretext for invading Iraq was a complete lie. Pelosi admitted her her lie on CNN in 2019.

Pelosi said Bush had a right to invade Iraq “because they won the election”. Pelosi justification? She said:”…I knew there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq. It just wasn’t there…. So, I knew it was a – a misrepresentation to the public…in my view, not a ground for impeachment. That was – they won the election. They made a representation. And to this day, people think – people think that that it was the right thing to do.”

Biden, though, maneuvered to invade Iraq before the election. Why did Biden want so much to invade Iraq? Official history doesn’t know. W Bush pretended he hated Saddam because Saddam had tried to kill his dad. But Biden never presented a motivation for his hatred. OK, OK, some will claim I do not know that Biden hated Iraq. They would say Biden just helped to kill ten percent of a country, because he could.

***

US FRACKING WAS THE MOTIVATION TO INVADE IRAQ:

When wars happen, it is often not clear why, in the heat of the moment. However, in the fullness of times, the real culprits are easier to reveal. However, sometimes, they stay hidden, because the mood in power is adverse to the truth. This needs a full essay: for example why Rome annihilated Carthage is still a hot potato: the plutocracy presently in power would prefer you not to know why, so it promotes in its plutocratic universities historians uninterested by a real explanation.

So why did the US invade Iraq? At the time US leaders claim that Iraqi oil would pay for the invasion (can’t do this, it’s a war crime!) That still did not explain how the US was supposed to profit from the invasion. 

{“type”:”block”,”srcClientIds”:[“a58ed73d-b0c8-45c4-9cbc-a26c5a2d70c1″],”srcRootClientId”:””}The truth is simple: Iraq, with the second oil reserves in the world, saw its oil production killed. In consequence, the price of oil shot up to heights never seen before (above $140 a barril). Capital investment in US FRACKING was profitable at or above $60 a barril. Wall Street was all for it. 

Shortly after the paroxysm of the Iraq war, the ingenue, Barack Obama arrived on the scene, talked of saving the climate, big time, and then proceeded to push US FRACKING as much as possible. Obama called fracking the “bridge fuel” to the “clean-energy future” (even the Washington Post in 2014 found this bridge fuel to the future “not so simple”). Soon the US was the greatest oil producer the world had ever seen, and soon the US was the world’s greatest gas producer the world had ever seen. Biden could only smile that the plot had worked as intended, and Trump haters could only conclude that Trump destroyed the climate.

*** 

Hatred in the service of greed is a common motivation:.

So what about these “Black Lives Matter” signs on the lawns? Do Iraq Lives Matter, too? So why are they not on the lawns, too? Two and a half million killed, does that speak loud enough? It does not? Never had math, never had history? Don’t know about Iraq? Why is that not SYSTEMIC RACISM AGAINST IRAQIS?

Patrice Ayme

Biden’s work. US Bombing Kirkuk, Iraq 2003

Biden Real Story

What is Biden’s story which is never told?

That as a very young “Democratic” Senator, Biden helped pass Reagan’s plutocratic globalist legislation in the 1980s? [0].

That Biden passed the laws which sent millions of minorities to prison in the 1980s? I know the case of a Black gentleman who was sent to prison for life for holding some drug paraphernalia. He has three children. It took years of efforts on the part of my spouse and the intervention of the friend, the president (Obama), to get him out.

Is Biden going to tell us the story of how, as head of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, he invented the myth of Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction? So not only did Biden vote to invade Iraq, he championed the destruction of the country. After six months of efforts, Bush adopted that myth, and this enabled Bush to invade Iraq, killing millions of people on the other side of the planet: reality overwhelms fiction, now US so-called “liberals” love that guy, Biden, who made all that mayhem possible [1].

Why so much admiration for the Biden led invasion of Iraq from the so-called, self-described “liberals”? Do “liberals” love that Biden “liberated” millions of Iraqi souls? Does that satisfy his accomplice in war crime Nancy Pelosi, third personage of the USA, who evokes the Bible continually? Is Biden so admired because they were told that was an admirable feat, an invasion that would make America great? Can self-described “liberals” imagine such an absurdity, or are they too scared? Or do they oppose Trump because Trump opposed the invasion of Iraq?

And what of Obamacare? It made healthcare more expensive and unattainable for most, and the proof is, life expectancy in the USA has been on a nose dive, for several years now, as never before… And still, plenty of Obama admirers, and many Biden admirers, lauds Obamacare, calling it a signature achievement.

Is Biden going to tell us how Obama’s push for fracking made the US the greatest producer of oil and gas that ever was? While being viewed as most ecological?

Is Biden going to tell the story of his herculean feats, raising monopoly powers and inequality to heights never seen before? How wealthy donors were rewarded shamelessly? [2].

Mass delusion pushed that far is the ultimate horror, and devastation.

War criminal in action, for all to see. Senate Foreign Relations Com. Chairman Joe Biden Bringing The Hammer Down On Iraq: let’s kill whatever number of Iraqis we need to kill to stop Iraqi Oil production, so we will increase the price of oil, thus increase US fracking, and please Wall Street and nice billionaires (whom it’s so good to know). Somebody’s gotta do it. What do you think of my WMD trick, dear George? When one brings the subject up with masturbating “liberal Americans” these days, they scoff, and say it was long ago. So was Von Ribbentrop, the nazi Foreign Minister, who was hanged for only one charge: misleading everybody, including Hitler, to make the war of aggression against Poland possible.

Those creatures have had too much power, for too long, to still be fully human.

Voting for Biden will be a moral choice. It’s also an epistemological, a cognitive test. Many democrats I talked to told me it didn’t matter whether Biden is a war criminal, or not. Do they even understand what they are saying? No.

Biden Real Story: Serving The Worst. Forty years of public disservice to prove it. Some have said to my face that it doesn’t matter how many millions Iraqis were killed. But, to me, it does matter to confront Nazism and Nazi like creatures, ready to trample the world to satisfy their greed for power.

Patrice Ayme

***

[0] Obama viewed as an electoral argument to express how much he admired Reagan… ourse it’s difficult to explain to Obama voters that Reagan was bad for them. But Reagan was deeply bad: he is the one who launched, as governor of California, tuition for PUBLIC universities…

Trump fought Reagan about globalization, in the 1980s (even starting a presidential campaign). Just as the 1920s and 1930s with Germany, Italy and Spain, even Japan, globalization of giant US companies enabled said companies to evade US legislation while making deals with dictators. One result was Hitler, and various local tin pots dictators, even Stalin. Another now has been encouraged and fortified, same method, same effect, the Chinese dictator Xi.

***

[1] Here is Joe Biden, as Chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2002: “In my judgment, President Bush is right to be concerned about Saddam Hussein’s relentless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and the possibility that he may use them or share them with terrorists,” Biden said at an August 2002 hearing.

“These weapons must be dislodged from Saddam Hussein, or Saddam Hussein must be dislodged from power…”

***

[2] When Biden was Vice President, his boss, Obama, engaged enthusiastically in the time-honored tradition of hooking up his major donors, giving ambassador posts to 31 “bundlers” who raised at least $50,000 for his campaign. That insured that those individuals would be nice to Obama in Obama’s present career, begging right and left for crumbs from plutocrats and their organizations.  Almost all of these ambassadorial posts were “in Western European nations or other highly developed and stable countries such as Canada and New Zealand,” according to the Center for Public Integrity (including large powers such as France, where som plutocrat was sent). A local wealthy woman (wealthy from marrying a wealthy man) I had been invited at the mansion of, and so was Obama, became ambassador to Switzerland…

Shockingly, but unsurprisingly, several of these ex-ambassadors have been bundling checks for Biden in this 2020 presidential campaign. Having seen this dirty crew at work under Obama sank me into depression at the time. Now I have switched to rebellion, which is much more comfortable.

Biden billionaire backers can only give $2,800 per election per person to the Biden campaign. That’s why toddlers are making gifts (as happened under Obama). Some millionaires are bundling checks from their wealthy friends. But Biden has conveniently flip flopped on super PAC support. So these diabolical Monopoly Men and Women now funnel endless amounts of money into outside ads supporting Biden, sculpting US politics into their thing. Right, it happened in the 1920s and the result was Hitler…. And the advancement of many a US plutocrat whose descendants now pull the string of countless foundations, universities, and secret influencing channels. The super PAC Unite the Country made its first ad buy in the Iowa campaign, for $650,000. Unite the Country is led by corporate lobbyists, consultants, and party fundraisers.

What of Trump, some will lash out, why don’t you focus on Trump? Well, Trump doesn’t pretend to be the opposite of what he is… And he is an excellent weapon, as he fights the globalization the Democrat leaders engineered, starting with Reagan. It’s easier to fight an enemy than a traitor who pretends to be your friend after lying about all what he and his accomplices did, planting all these knives in your back.

Let me repeat slowly. Trump and Biden are persons. In law there is a notion of moral persons (an old French legal notion recently embraced by the US Supreme Court). So a company can be a moral person. Viewed at it that way, globalization itself can be viewed as a moral creature, a moral monster… much bigger than individuals such as Trump or Biden. What is sure is that Trump condemns the eight trillion dollars (he keeps on repeating) spent in the Middle East for no good reason (including the Iraq invasion, mostly done, as I keep on repeating, to bolster the price of oil and making Wall Street’s massive fracking investment possible… under Obama). Trump also condemns the delocalization of industry to China, the exact same trick used in Rome… And the reality is MONOPOLY powers were augmented under Obama considerably. The impeachment surfaced exactly when a deal had been made with Congress to attack the MONOPOLY problem, and its patent aspect. It cannot be possibly a coincidence.

Trump should evoke the Defense Procurement Act to re-established the Patent System demolished by Obama. it is a question of national security that inventors can be rewarded for their inventions. As it is, Monopoly Powers can block any small inventor by stealing their inventions… Obama used to crow about making sure only monopolies could profit from inventions… That killed inventions: inventors had to file in Europe, or China!

***

P/S, More details: The New York Times went on and on about how wise Stephen King was about hating Trump, in a long interview. So I sent a comment (part of it above). It was of course censored (others were allowed to comment on Biden, as long as they sang his praises, or offer very mild critiques). Why do I pay the NYT? Just a multi-decade habit, a drug addiction of mine? Or do I subscribe so that I can see a major newspaper insulting truth, and me? Yes. Studying Pluto propaganda, live. Nothing like it.

Meanwhile a past Biden staffer, Tara Reade, filed against him a sexual assault charge. It is corroborated in multiple ways (including by one Democrat who used to be Tara’s neighbor, and who intends to vote for Biden!) The Pluto Monopoly press has scrupulously ignored the sex attack… although one of the most damning piece of evidence comes from CNN’s Larry King itself! Biden is so impervious to the notion of sexism, he called Kamala Harris, Senator of California, “kid”.

When Biden went to China in an official visit with his son Hunter in November 2013, Hunter was hunting for big money, big like a billion dollars, and Hunter, and Joe, connected with Jonathan Li, a Chinese banker (thus an official of the government). Here is the New York Times in What We Know About Hunter Biden’s Business in China

Hunter Biden has been a member of the board of BHR since it was formed in late 2013.

…in early December 2013 in Beijing. Mr. Biden, who had traveled to China on official business as vice president, met and shook hands with his son’s business associate, Jonathan Li, in the lobby of the hotel where the American delegation was staying, according to an account in The New Yorker. The magazine said Hunter Biden had arranged the encounter with Mr. Li, who was headed for a post as BHR’s chief executive…

Several days after the trip, BHR won a business license from the Chinese government…

To raise funds, BHR teamed up with some of China’s leading state-owned financial companies, including its biggest indirect shareholder, Bank of China, as well as China Development Bank and the country’s social security fund, according BHR’s website. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2014 that the firm was seeking to raise $1.5 billion.

“Almost any senior name that I start researching, I run into practices like this. It is extraordinarily widespread,” Sarah Chayes, the author of the book “Thieves of State: Why Corruption Threatens Global Security,” said in an interview on National Public Radio on Thursday. “How did we all convince ourselves that this isn’t corrupt?”

Yes, corruption threatens global security: we got the virus from it. (By the way it’s ex French Prime Minister Raffarin, a man who made a fortune in China, who arranged for the P4 lab in Wuhan, the only one in China. So the global corruption dealing with German fascism in the 1920s and 1930s, which the US is presently repeating with the Chinese dictatorship, is now enthusiastic supported by the French… Who had not messed up with Hitler…).

***

Post P/S: The New York Times informed me, after the publication of this present essay and the one before that (which evoked the NYT’s censorship of that particular comment), that my comment was published… 48 hours late, and when nobody will read it, as intended… This way the NYT can claim I was not de jure censored… although I was, de facto, namely the NYT readers didn’t see my comment… This little game has happened hundreds of times…

Executing Soleimani, Executing Heydrich: Justified In Both Cases

Why did Trump order the killing of Suleimani? There is something like enough is enough. Soleimani’s agents in Iraq alone, caused the death of 608 US soldiers (said the State Dept. last year). Soleimani was in charge, if not the soul, of Fundamentalist Islamist State Iran’s aggressive expansion throughout the Middle East, in areas that, long ago, were part of the Greco-Roman states.

Fundamentalist Islamist States are not compatible with Secular Democracy, because they don’t keep with the times (that’s what being non-secular means, fundamentally): they are still stuck in the Middle Ages, executing people for being unbelievers, as when Ali (fourth Caliph), and his sons Hussein and Hasan, ruled. Ali was the cousin and son-in-law of Mohammed. The Shiite branch of Islam regards him and certain descendants as inspired rulers, only true heirs of Mohammed. Ali was the son of Abu Talib, Mohammed’s uncle and for a time his guardian, He was also the first male convert to Islam. He died in two days from a strike of a follower of another Muslim sect, with a poisoned sword.

Ali was neither nice nor enlightened. He ordered Muslims and others he viewed as unfaithful, to be burned alive.

Democracy, the people-power, is not compatible with regimes where one religious fanatic, like Khamenei, drenched with and molded by superstition and an imaginary world full of prophets, djinns and demons rules over millions.
Moreover the Islamist State regime in Iran over which Khomeini, Khamenei and Soleimani ruled wants nuclear weapons. What for? Destroy Israel (as ordered by Literal Islam)? Destroy us? In the name of their demon in the sky?

[I tried to post a picture of Soleimani, but was prevented to do so by the internet dictators who mind us. After wasting a full hour on this, I give up. Forbidding to post a picture is as anti-democratic as it gets!]

Suleimani (saluting) and Iranian Pope-Emperor Khamenei.

This is a small planet, and there is no space for secular democracy, and its deadly enemies, brandishing nuclear weapons.
Time to review, and thus learn, history. So as not to repeat it, the nuclear way.

In the Second World War, the French Republic was initially held back, and prevented (in 1933, 1935, 1936, and 1938) by the British and the American governments to do anything about Hitler.

Finally, after the fall of the Spanish Republic to the Nazis and their allies, Britain joined France in giving guarantees to Poland (in the addendum to the Polish-French defense treaty). Meanwhile the US was clamoring for peace, although hundreds of thousands of undesirable Germans had already been incarcerated or eliminated by the Nazis. US pseudo-intellectuals, and the US Congress were still viewing France and Britain as the problem, while the Nazis had started to systematically kill Polish civilians (by bombing mills, and hospitals, inter alia). A US law condemned US citizens who did as little as stepping on a French or british boat (Fall 1939).

The holocaust of World War Two (more than 4% of humanity killed) was rendered possible by the division of the democracies, and the party of pro-Nazis disguised as advocates of “peace”. We have a similar situation now. Actually, Hitler was strongly influenced by Islam, because Islam was a war religion and it hated the Jews.
Hitler said so, and was right: some sacred Muslim writings say Judgment day will not happen before all Jews are killed. Here is an example.

Hadith 41;6985: ”Allah’s Messenger: The last hour would NOT COME UNLESS the Muslims will FIGHT AGAINST THE JEWS and the MUSLIMS WOULD KILL THEM until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree, and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and KILL HIM…”

By executing Suleimani, the US government put its foot down. It is similar to the execution of Reinhard Heydrich by the British. Except Suleimani was a mix of Heydrich and Himmler. (Right, the Nazis exacted great vengeance after Heydrich’s execution. The answer to this is to make a more detailed list of criminals against humanity, and punish them in the future.)
A slight difference between Nazi Germany, also a religious cult, and Shiite Iran, is that the dictatorship in Iran was never elected… Whereas the Nazis initially were, and went through referendums and a simulacrum of democracy thanks to the “Enabling Act”…
Having nuclear armed superstitious dictatorship left free to expand their influence and means is the recipe for the end of not just democracy on this planet, but the biosphere itself. The demons of the Middle Ages belong to history, not the future. And if to make them pass away requires lethal force, so be it. Last thing we need is a nuclear Pearl Harbor, or the nuclear equivalent of the battle of France of 1940.

In 1940, the French army, which had more and better tanks, a bigger Navy, and an air force just as big (although half of it was outside France, and the latest fighters had not been deployed yet in sufficient numbers) was defeated mostly because it was taken by surprise. Surprise, first of all, in the nature of the attack (which was so desperate that it was completely crazy, out of war manuals), surprise, because they didn’t see it coming (unbelievably the French and British didn’t know where the German army was), and surprise in crucial technical details (such as equipping the superior French tanks with radio; without radio, those tanks were vulnerable, all the more as their crews were too small). Surprise also because everybody knew the French army was superior to the Nazi one, so the basic precaution of keeping a reserve had not been taken, while, hubristically, the French rushed to save the perfidious Netherlands…

The best way to win wars is not to avoid them at all cost, as ignorant peaceniks affect to believe, but to engage in them in a timely manner. Winning the potential war was helped by eliminating a fanatical rogue Iranian murderer with immense powers of destruction. And the best way to engage in holocausts is not to fight wars in the name of humanity.

It is reassuring to see that the present US government learned something from the 1930s fiasco of peace at any cost…

Patrice Ayme

***

P/S:

There were UN sanctions against Soleimani from 2007, for terrorism. By 2011, sanctions were extended by the US, the EU, for repressing and killing civilians in Syria rebelling against the dictatorship there (which Soleimani supported enormously)… especially after an alleged plan to kill the Saudi Ambassador to the US…

On the face of it, Quds general Soleimani was the biggest terrorist, ever, much bigger than Bin Laden and Al Baghdadi, by orders of magnitude.

I was against the attacks on Iraq… from 1990 to 2003. Especially the 2003 invasion. We would have been better off with Saddam Hussein still in power. However the Islamist State in Iran is a major problem… for civilization. Iraq, while an authoritarian dictatorship, was secular, and had lots of nice modern laws copied on the West, as Saddam himself, somewhat baffled, noticed.
The question of why was iraq attacked than has to do with… fracking, US fossil fuel control… And general political control of the world, especially the EU, Russia…

***

P/S 2: Agnès Callamard is a French Human Rights expert and Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions at the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). She is also the Director of Columbia University’s Global Freedom of Expression project.

Callamard told CNN that such actions (such as eliminating one of the world’s biggest terrorists) are rewriting the rules — and she believes a bigger issue needs to be addressed.

“What kind of institutions and rules will best protect people around the world, and do we think that kind of strike is conducive to an international rule of law?“

The answer is simple: secularism and direct democracy. Striking the enemies of both is a question of life and death.

Little ignorant cowards who never had a Fatwa against them can’t get it, and are enemies of civilizational progress, in the same fashion as Nazi collabos in World War Two…

Which law, anyway? We are all held hostages to “Launch On Warning” (LOW)… Does the PC drenched Agnès Callamard even heard of LOW? Probably not, not her expertise, i’m sure. Still, LOW is what the LAW is submitted to.

Better Win War Now, than lose it tomorrow.

The history of civilization is a struggle between fascism and democracy. Fascism confers military power and the extinction of the enemy. Democracy confers intelligence thus progress of the brutal evil of nature, and provides with the natural state of the genus Homo, comprising all the freedoms.

Thus any battle against fascism is a battle for humanity against the Dark Side… Except when the most advanced, most human party, has to use the power of fascism and the Dark Side to destroy its enemies… This later logical twist, that of the “Just War” has been known ever since civilization exists, and assuredly for much longer. Unsophisticated individuals friendly to fascism and the Dark Side always brandish the utilization of the later as the ultimate defense of the most advanced civilization to claim that the forces of greater light and goodness are not any better than their inferiors.

At the Battle de la Marne, Civilization, carried by the wings of the human spirit, Won Over Racist, Holocaustic Fascism, And That’s The Truth. Racist fascist prone to exterminate others (for example exterminate not just Jews, but Iraqis), will disagree… But with these truths we will extinguish them…

They even go further: they claim there is no such a thing as “better” (I have explained that this is exactly what the Nazis, and Soviet and US plutocrats wanted to hear, after 1933, and this is why the theme was embraced with such alacrity by European intellectuals basically paid, by the new masters, to destroy their own civilization. This is why someone like De Beauvoir served the Nazis, and then the Americans (under cover of “decolonization”), then Castro, Mao and other degenerate dictatorialists (Marxist In Name Only Weasels: MINOWs).

The incapacity of many indoctrinated since has enabled them to deny the very concept of superiority (thus progress). They became perfect slaves for plutocracy, the Sheep-People, the Sheeple. I talk to some recently, they attacked even the idea of controlled thermonuclear fusion, because it would lead to better tools, hence better weapons, hence the idea that there is such a thing as progress, thus superiority.

It’s not even the Inversion of All Values plutocracy is keen to achieve, it’s they very denial that there are values: nihilism to serve The Man, Pluto.

US President Trump authorized the attack early Friday at Baghdad International Airport that killed Iran’s top security and intelligence commander, Major General Qassim Suleimani, head of the Quds Force (declared a terrorist organization in the West).

White House: “Suleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel. But we caught him in the act. We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war.”

The elimination of that famous enemy of democracy and friend of Allah (in His Shiite version), was achieved apparently with new weapons, ultra precise small rockets…

What was Suleimani, one of Iran’s most feared killers doing in Iraq? Was he invited there by the government? Why shouldn’t the lethal enemies of democracies not be destroyed in a timely manner? When Hitler rose, the US did just two things: 1) prevent the French Republic to strike in a timely manner to respond to the Nazi invasions of Spain and the Rhineland. 2) Let Texaco fuel the air bridge and then the rogue army which enabled the fascists to destroy the Spanish Republic… with Texas oil. That amused Hitler for years.

Superstitious religious terrorism, quickly followed by the invasion of small, very determined savage barbarian tribes, and alliances thereof, caused the Fall of the “Occidental Part” of the Roman state. In 394 CE, using savage Goths as shock troops, emperor Theodosius I destroyed the secular occidental Roman army led by the very experienced Frankish Roman generalissimo Arbogast. By 406 CE, the Roman Occidental Part was pierced through by many German nations… Soon all the way to North Africa.

Something similar, a brutal military collapse, unrecoverable and unrecovered, happened to the Oriental part when the small Arab army shattered the Roman army. In both cases, the consequences were civilizational collapse and an enormous diminution of the population.

Why did this happen? Why the collapse of the Greco-Roman world state? Democratic forces didn’t take seriously enough religious terrorism fed militarism, the exact mix Iran is now brimming with. “Taking seriously” means that you go to war and reduce the enemy into insignificance, before it grows too powerful… as Hitler had become in 1939, when France and Britain, unprepared, declared war to the Nazis. If the French army had fought the Nazis earlier, it would have learned the tricks needed May 10, 1939. But it didn’t. So French tanks didn’t have radio, and too few crew members. The suggestions of De Gaulle to create large tank formations had been followed by the Nazis more than by the French. Also the French and British air forces needed a few days to perfect the aerial air combat and ground support stunts the Nazis had three years to refine in Spain. So the British and French air forces couldn’t destroy the provisional Nazi bridges on the Moselle.   

The fulcrum of the Western Civilization which became the World Civilization most of the planet enjoys now, was France (long story, lasting more than 3,000 years…) Not by coincidence, France has also been the country most at war. Ever. And, also not by coincidence, the next most bellicose country was China.

War, fundamentally is not just always a deranged rage, but also, when it turns out to have been a good war, a debate where the best ideas won… An example is the crushing of German racial lethal fascism by France and her descendants. It promoted better ideas, for example the fact that the US Army realized it became a better fighting force by incorporating Afro-Americans and other “coloreds” in combat (see the Tuskegee Airmen of the 99th and 332th Air Squadrons, the Black squadron engaged spectacularly at the precedingly faltering Anzio beach head).

It’s not just that civilization has to be defended against fascism. It is also that it has to be born violently from the prior fascism it has to escape to rise again, like the Phoenix (example abounds such as the rise, and the rebirth, of Athenian democracy, or the rise of the Roman, French or American Republics, etc.)

The phoenix exists, it’s human intelligence, always born by branching out from the intellectual, and political, and economic, and plutocratic fascisms which preceded them.

Want progress? Engage in war, and it will be a good war, if it starts with an alliance with truths. Better and deeper truths. And remember this: it will be hard, and you better love fighting!

Patrice Ayme

 

Why The Crusades Were Lost: Saint Louis’ Racism Against The Mongols!

Islam came to near annihilation in the Thirteenth Century as Franks and Mongols unified and took the Islamist capitals, Baghdad and Damascus. A little known episode. At the time, the overall Mongol Khan was a woman (another little known episode!) But she didn’t cause the problem. Instead Saint Louis’ jealous racism, and unbounded hatred of “infidels” made the difference.

Richard the Lionheart lived in France, where he was supposedly vassal to the king of France, Philip II Augustus his companion in arms (who left the so-called “Holy land” after a while, leaving his soul mate Richard, in charge). Richard may not have lost major battles. But, a century later, Saint Louis, Louis IX of France, did, and ruined France in the process.

It became clear nothing good was achieved by all this crusading. On top of that, the climate started to wobble. Instead, the French switched to the trading model with Islam (rendered possible by treaties consecutive to the Crusades). Immense fortunes were made (Jacques Coeur, born a commoner, became the richest man in France by trading with the Levant in the fifteenth century, and soon, master of the mint, and a most important European diplomat).

Arab chroniclers used the correct term, “Franki” (Franks) to qualify the Europeans trying to (re)conquer the Middle East from the religion of Islam, which had smothered it.

By the time the Crusades were launched, direct Muslim aggression against Europe has been continuous since 715 CE, a full four centuries (the word “Europe” was used first by the Franks in the context of the Muslim invasions). This continual Muslim attack was viewed, correctly, by all concerned, as the continuation of the war of Islam against Rome. (Naturally so, as the Franks so themselves as “Rome”. By 800 CE, the Franks had officially “renovated”, as they put it, the Roman empire…)

Painted in 1337 CE. Notice that the Franks are covered in armor, and the Muslims are not. Obvious technological superiority. The Romans already bought light steel helmets in Gaul! Muslim tech superiority is a lie. In plain view.

There is plenty of evidence that the Franks were more advanced than the Muslims in crucial military technology, as early as 715 CE. How could they not be? The Muslims were just coming out of savage Arabia, all the technology they had, was stolen, or, let’s say, adopted from others.

Four terracotta hand grenades, with “Greek Fire” inside, used by the defenders of Constantinople against the Turks. Greek Fire had many variants, some secret to this day. The Chinese developed dry versions, with salpeter, which turned into black powder later.

The Franks, who had been the crack troops of the Roman empire, as early as 311 CE, had better steel, better armor, better steel weapons, and giant war horses capable of wearing armor themselves. That’s why the Franks were able to defeat the Muslims, overall, in the first phase of the war with Islam, which was in Europe (711 CE, attack on Spain, until the counterattack on Jerusalem, 1099 CE).

This European technological superiority was obvious during the Spanish reconquista. An armored Spanish horse was like an intelligent, indomitable battle tank, which would charge again and again, rarely seriously wounded. By contrast, Muslim cavaliers wore little armor, their relatively small Arab horses were excellent but all too little (I used to ride my own very combative Arab stallion in Africa, which nobody else would, or could, ride… Its name, appropriately chosen, was Napoleon…).

Horse archers were not effective against heavily armored cavalry. They could bother it, but not defeat it. This is why the Mongols decided wisely not to attack the Franks again, after invading, suffering huge losses, Hungary, and Croatia. The Mongols debated what had happened to their ancestors the Huns, eight centuries earlier, in France (annihilation spared only political decision). The Mongols used rocket artillery.

Noah Smith wrote “Why Did Europe Lose the Crusades?“. Said he: “A little while ago, I started to wonder about a historical question: Why did Europe lose the Crusades? The conventional wisdom, at least as I’ve always understood it, is that Europe was simply weaker and less advanced than the Islamic Middle Eastern powers defending the Holy Land. Movies about the Crusades tend to feature the Islamic armies deploying fearsome weapons – titanic trebuchets, or even gunpowder. This is consistent with the broad historical narrative of a civilizational “reversal of fortunes” – the notion that Islamic civilization was much more highly advanced than Europe in the Middle Ages. Also, there’s the obvious fact that the Middle East is pretty far from France, Germany, and England, leading to the obvious suspicion that the Middle East was just too far away for medieval power projection.

Anyway, I decided to answer this question by…reading stuff about the Crusades. I read all the Wikipedia pages for the various crusades, and then read a book – Thomas Asbridge’s “The Crusades: The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land“. Given that even these basic histories contain tons of uncertainty, we’ll never really know why the Crusades turned out the way they did. But after reading up a bit, here are my takes on the main candidate explanations for why Europe ultimately lost.”

He pursue by fingering “lack of motivation” as the main cause of the loss of the Crusades. That is true, in part: Europe opened to the ocean. However, the Crusades won in important ways (opening up trade). But the Europeans also really lost, when it would have been easy to win.

Noah Smith’s analysis focuses only on the English (so to speak) aspect of the Crusades. He does not quite say that a rogue frankish army seized Constantinople in 1204 CE. And then he omits completely what happened in the Thirteenth Century (because Richard Lionhearted was then dead, and history is all about the Anglois?).

For politically correct reasons, some of them ten centuries old, some more voguish, allegations have been made of the superiority of Islam (or China, for that matter). These (often self-serving from racist self-declared anti-racists) assertions are not grounded in fact.

By 1000 CE, the Franks had the highest GDP per capita in the world, and its history. European technology was, overall, the most advanced. Europeans were stunned by how little the Chinese used machines and animals.  

The Arabic numbers were Greek numbers perfected in India, where the full zero was invented, and were reintroduced through central Asia. Out of the 160 major work of Antiquity we have, 150 survived in European monasteries, the universities of the time (and the ten remaining were saved by the Persians, initially).

The Middle East, long the cradle of most invention, has been clearly a shadow of its former self, ever since Islam established its dictator, intolerance and war friendly terrorizing culture of god obsession.

Crusades in the Middle east until 1204; The image Noah Smith uses, which misinforms the reality of what happened…

Europe didn’t “lose the Crusades”. Saint Louis did. Europe didn’t just decide the Middle East was hopeless, in all sorts of ways. Europe had got reopening of the Silk Roads from Saladin. Meanwhile in 1244, the Khwarezmians, recently pushed out by the advance of the Mongols, took Jerusalem on their way to ally with the Egyptian Mamluks. Europe shrugged (by then “Roman” emperors such as Frederick I Barbarossa had used a Muslim company of bodyguards… So there was strictly no anti-Muslim hatred and racism… contrarily to what happened with the Mongols, see below…) 

It is also true that Saint Louis, a weird mix of a dangerous religious fanatic of the worst type, and a modern, enlightened king, lost its entire army (to a woman, the only female leader Islam ever had!) in Egypt. Saint Louis was taken captive at the Battle of Fariskur where his army was annihilated. He nearly died, was saved from dysentery by an Arab physician (impressed Arabs offered for him to rule them). A huge ransom had to be paid, comparable to the French budget. Then Saint Louis died in front of Tunis, in another ridiculous crusade (1270 CE).  Louis fell ill with dysentery, and was cured by an Arab physician

The Seventh and Eight Crusades were disastrous military defeats

Saint Louis, a racist, was the direct cause of the survival of Islam. The Mongols, allied to local Franks had destroyed Baghdad (siege of the Abbasid Caliphate) and Damascus (siege of the Umayyad). The Mongols asked respectfully to make an official alliance with Christianity, and eradicate Islam.

Instead the Pope called Nestorian Christian Mongols heathens, and him and Saint Louis promised excommunication to all and any Frank joining the Mongols in war. Thus the Mongols attacked Egypt without Frankish help, and were defeated by the Mamluks Turks.

Dejected, the Mongols decided that they were Muslims (Islam has no pope, and the Caliphate had been destroyed by the Franco-Mongol alliance ) Under Timor Lame, they would carve a giant Mongol-Muslim empire all the way into India.

This is just a fraction of the common operations of the Franks and Mongols, when they were allied against the Muslims, destroying Baghdad, seizing Damascus. Saint Louis and his pet the Pope saved Islam by calling a halt to the cooperation. Mongols and Franks actually took Damascus together, and the commanders entered the conquered city, side by side…

The Spanish were more serious. They, Isabella, Ferdinand and their advisers, planned to pursue the reconquista by extirpating Islam from North Africa and the Middle East.

The extremely well-trained, battle hardened army was prepared, but then the Americas had just been discovered, and war with France for the control of the world in general and Italy in particular, became everything. Spain engaged in a war with France it took nearly two centuries to lose. The conquest of the Americas changed the world, though. The reconquest of the Christian empire from the Muslims was given up…

It could have been done: the Spanish occupied many cities of North Africa, including Algiers and Oran. Power was divided between Ottoman pirates (“Barbarossas”) and the kingdom of Tlemcen. In any case, in 1525 CE, while Cortez was conquering Central America, defeating among others, the Aztecs, pirates retook Algiers in the name of the Turk Selim 1. At the same time, Selim defeated the Egyptian Mamluks, taking control of the Levant, Mecca, and Egypt.

Islam, a pretty deleterious religion in its literal, Salafist form, survived. North Africa and the Middle East, previously long the world’s wealthiest place, is now the poorest and most war-ridden…

And the war goes on, the ideology of Salafist, literal Islam, being fundamentally antagonistic to civilization.

For the USA, the Iraq war has been an enormous victory: it boosted the price of oil for a decade, enabling the massive deployment of US fracking. Now the USA is again the world’s number one fossil fuel producer. Also French and US military forces are fighting from Mali to Afghanistan, maintaining economic and military control over an area still crucial for energy production (although it will soon become economically irrelevant, from renewable energy).  

All the regimes from Mali to Afghanistan, are, officially, friendly to civilization. So why does the war goes on? Because the ideology is islam is centered on Jihad, no holds barred. Thus Islam gives a ready ideology to those who want to make no holds barred. This is why the Turks converted to islam. Within a generation, they had invaded a huge swathe of Central Asia, and overran very old civilization: Georgia, Armenia, and the Oriental Romans (“Constantinople”).

Then Christian pilgrims going to Jerusalem were massacred (up to 10,000 at one time) by various Muslim potentates. Constantinople, having lost half of its territory, to the recently converted, ferociously invading Turks, asked the “Occidental” Roman empire to come to the rescue.   

In 1095 Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade in a sermon at the Council of Clermont. He encouraged military intervention for the so-called Byzantine Empire and its Emperor, Alexios I, who needed desperately to stop the westward invasion of the migrating Turks colonising Anatolia.

Morality of all this? What people think they know about history has little to do with what really happened. The forces presently in conflict have been in conflict ever since Islam exists, as Muhammad wanted it. The Quraish, in Mecca, the dominant tribe Muhammad belonged to, didn’t trust Muhammad: he was an analphabet and an epileptic. To boot, Muhammad succeeded in life by marrying a wealthy business woman, and then switching from caravan trading, to caravan raiding.

Just before he died, Muhammad led the first attack against the Romans (who had not attacked him, and refused combat). War is the great arbiter of human destiny. The enormous Roman field army, horrendously led erroneously, was annihilated on its third day of battle at Yarmouk against the Arab Muslim army. Emperor Heraclius, a great general had not been present, he was in Alexandria.

War is a great arbiter, but it is also extremely fickle. Crucial battles are won, and lost, which should never have been won, or lost. Sometimes by sheer happenstance, sometimes from hubris, sometimes by having top generals with top armies not considering the worst imaginable case (as happened to the Romans when fighting the Arabs at Yarmouk, or with Yamamoto at Midway, or the French mid May 1940…).

To learn from history, it has to be learned in full. Civilization missed a chance to eliminate the Islamist war ideology when it aborted the natural alliance with the Mongols. But it’s not very surprising: the overall leader of Europe, then, was Saint Louis. Saint Louis invented the modern justice system, and put his mother, Blanche de castille, in charge of France for many years. So he could be viewed as non-sexist and all for justice. He is represented to this day, rendering justice below an oak. However, Saint Louis was also a savage. He really believed that unbelievers should be killed painfully. Interestingly, Saint Louis came to believe that the Muslims were believers: his fanatical rage was oriented towards Jews and those who, in Christendom, did not believe. So it’s entirely natural that, by considering the Mongols heathens, and forbidding a further alliance with them, he would, in the end, save Islam!

It’s not just that Saint Louis burned 12,000 Jewish manuscripts in Paris, in 1243 CE (5 years before he led the disastrous Seventh Crusade). Saint Louis wrote abominable descriptions of the atrocious ways in which he would kill infidels (I read it in the original texts long ago; however, I was unable to find a source today…)

We have Jihadists around, ready to kill the innocent nowadays, because Saint Louis was actually one of them!

Patrice Ayme’

Blair Bliar & The Islamist Hatred He Brought

The Commission studying the war crimes of Prime Minister Blair came up with scathing conclusions. Blair is culprit as charged by anybody who has studied the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Even Donald Trump thunderously charged, speaking of Bush and his ilk: “they lied”.

The lie was that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, a secular regime, had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Of course it did not. Blair claimed that he was sincere, July 6, 2016. Either he is lying again, or he admits that he was then, truly, a complete imbecile. There is only one weapon of mass destruction: the nuclear bomb. It was impossible for Iraq to develop one, because Iraq had no nuclear reactor (so no Plutonium), nor a (extremely visible, as they were then immense) isotopic separation factories (so Iraq had no Uranium 235, the one and only other nuclear explosive). In truth, Blair was an architect of evil. Being an architect of evil, and how to sell that to We The People, is a skill plutocrats are ready to pay top dollar for. Thus Blair became immensely rich, following the Bill Clinton model:

Only A Small Part of It. Blair Is An Expert At Criminal Government, And How To Get Away With It, So His Services Are Much In Demand

Normal British and American people are ill-informed: their governments lied to their face, Hitler style, and they goose-stepped behind them.

The British Chilcot commission, recognized that, as a result, at least 150,000 Iraqi civilians died. 179 UK soldiers died, and more than 4,400 American soldiers (in truth much more than that, and several times that number were maimed, often inside their brains, from the accelerations of exploding IEDs).

Blair In A Few Words

Worse: the invasion of Iraq, this blunt, delirious, obscene, groundless attack against a secular Arab country showed to all Arabs, and now the whole world, that Islam was right all along. Thus the Islamist State mentality was born. Even worse: to the whole world, it was made obvious that the only way to oppose the West’s plutocratic drift, is on religious grounds (this already happened in the Seventh Century). And the anti-West religion par excellence is Islam (Islam was designed that way, explicitly, by Muhammad; Muhammad insisted that Islam was the way to defeat the Greco-Roman civilization and the Persian one, a Greco-Babylonian derivative). 

Blair Gave Bush The Cover He Needed

As The Guardian puts it: “Asked whether invading Iraq was a mistake Blair was strikingly unrepentant. “I believe we made the right decision and the world is better and safer,” he declared. He argued that he had acted in good faith, based on intelligence at the time which said that Iraq’s president had weapons of mass destruction. This “turned out to be wrong”.”

Blair’s two-hour press conference came after Chilcot, a retired civil servant, published his long-awaited report, seven years in the making, into the Iraq debacle. In the end, “it was a more far-reaching and damning document than many had expected. It eviscerated Blair’s style of government and decision-making.“

It also revealed that in a private note sent on 28 July 2002 Blair promised Bush: “I will be with you, whatever.” Is it just the love between two men, or the love of greed, and power, overwhelming all?

Thus now Islam, and its social equality message, poses as the great answer to the ravages of plutocracy. That is why Islam is gaining, even in Brazil.

How to stop all this? Well, first things first: the war criminals, those who conducted a war of aggression thanks to huge lies, should be indicted for war crimes.

At Nuremberg, Joachim Von Ribbentrop was condemned to hang (slowly, it turned out), for “war of aggression”. By this was meant the attack on Poland. France (and its British poodle, safely removed on its island) declared war to Germany three days later.  

So France was not viewed as the aggressor, although the Nazis accused France to have started World War Two. Why? One needs judgment: the aggressor were the Nazis, not the French Republic. And this is exactly what is needed now: judgment. Judge Blair and Bush. And their criminally behaved poodles. At least, if you want to avoid We The People to turn to Islam to stop what has become a criminal way of managing government, and getting away with it. For all to see.

Sex is strong. Hatred is stronger. Pushed to its limit, hatred makes killing the enemy what gives sense to the world. Hatred makes oneself divine (or very close to it). As the Qur’an explicitly says. This is the new world of mood Bush and Blair mightily fostered (part of a US tradition of using Islam as it always had been meant to be used, ever since the Fourth Caliph (Uthman): as an instrument of subjugation) . All those who don’t want to punish Bush and Blair for fostering mayhem, Islamization and subjugation,  contribute to it.

Patrice Ayme’