Archive for the ‘Iraq War’ Category

Executing Soleimani, Executing Heydrich: Justified In Both Cases

January 5, 2020

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



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. 

January 4, 2020

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!

July 9, 2017

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 wroteWhy 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

July 6, 2016

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

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

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

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’