Fundaments Of US Deep State, Fundaments Of Violent Jihadism. 911 Not What It Looked Like.

Fundamentally the 9/11 tragedy was caused by the US Deep State support for violent Fundamentalist Jihadists who were instructed to fight history by the ISI, CIA and SIA, the secret services of Pakistan, US and Saudi Arabia. One can see this in two ways which support each other: who profited from the crime, and the historical facts. Historically, the US Deep State encouraged (at the very least) the ISI to attack the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in the 1970s. On July 3, 1979, Carter signed an order to go on full attack, using “riled up Muslims”… in the words of Brezinsky, Carter’s National Security adviser. In an interview to a French magazine, Brezinsky later claimed that this was done to force the Soviets to intervene in Afghanistan. However, a much sinister explanation is possible… The same explanation for the deepest reason of the invasion of Iraq: that was done, fundamentally, because it took Iraq out of the world oil market, oil is fungible, and thus the price of oil shot up to make fracking inside the USA wildly profitable to Wall Street investors.

Afghanistan is very rich in various rare minerals; France and the USSR arranged to exploit those, with the green light of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. The war launched by Carter cynically targeted schools for girls with bombs, and prevented the integration of Afghanistan in the European co-prosperity sphere. One cannot get more vicious than that. Forgetting, or not knowing what the US Deep State did to Afghanistan before 9/11, which was way worse in many ways, is to become an accomplice of it

***

The US Deep State psycho-engineered the wars the USA got involved with, and this, even before 1914. What is the Deep State? It is the collusion between wealth, think tanks, academe, Big Law, high finance, the military-government complex, deep administration, corporations, media and government.

These pecuniary interests steer the elections and then the official government policies. Extremely wealthy “Philanthropists”, who love mostly themselves, intervene in the electoral system. 

But the facts are forgotten, and often never got to be known. Who knows that the top adviser of (racist) US president Wilson was in the Kaiser’s office, offering an alliance, on June 1, 1914, weeks before German mobilization? It made WW1 possible. Indeed the US business could break through the Netherlands the Franco-British blockade of Germany, bringing in materials which Germany could pursue the war without. 

Who knows what president Carter signed on July 3, 1979 (order of secret intervention in Afghanistan). 

The unexamined life is dangerous, especially for those who are considered canon fodder and are submitted to exploitation by oligarchs. It was obvious that the invasion of Iraq, as explained, was a lie and made no sense. Many people understand this now, finally. However to just say Iraq was attacked because of machismo is itself a cover-up. The truth can be approached by thinking to whom the war profited. The military-industrials, of course, but that, itself, is another coverup. The truth is far more sinister: once Iraq was taken out of the oil equation, fracking became profitable in the USA, making Wall Street and the likes of Halliburton very wealthy… 

Patrice Ayme

Never mind. Unintended consequence of Carter’s 1979 order? The US has been supporting Muslim Fundamentalism of the violent kind for generations before that… It’s an old trick the US Deep State knows well, and that it used to make a pact with the devil. Getting oil and money, and power, and division of the enemies and competitors, in the bargain….

P/S: The allusion to Carter’s launch of the Afghan war was CENSORED by the New York Times, once again, 20 years to the day after 911. A comment I sent that way was dutifully censored by this propaganda paper I subscribe to. NYT wants you to think Trump caused 911.

European Parliamentary Election: Avoid European Leaders Imposing Hard Core Wahhabism

Remember the Wahhabist Friendly Powers That Be In The European Union. Such As Jihadist Judges at the European Court of Human Rights!

The European elections are next weekend. People have approached me, and asked me who to vote for. I have two answers about who NOT to vote for:

Don’t vote for “ecologists” who are against nuclear energy. 93% of the energy of the world at this point comes from making CO2, nuclear deniers are ignorant, lunatics, hypocrites, or all the preceding. CO2 is warming the planet too fast, and acidifying the oceans, evolution can’t follow. The combination could lead to the ultimate catastrophe; collapse of the oxygen making system. Nuclear energy from fission, Thorium and fusion, has to be deployed ASAP. https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/05/30/global-hypoxia/ (I am also 100% for solar, etc.; but they will be too little, too late…)

Don’t vote for those who consider that Wahhabism is NOT a danger. Wahhabism (literal Islam) is intrinsically terrible, but also a Trojan horse against reason pushed by global plutocracy. It is part of a complex plot (deliberate or not, conscious or not) to subjugate the world, by the powers that be (often in finance).

We should go back to fundamentals. Clearly the creature is a fruit of synthetic biology…

[Wahhabism is generally confused with “Islam”… something which should infuriate, and often does, the other one hundred other types of Islam… All the more as Wahhabism was so hard core primitive, that it was already outlawed in 12 C Egypt, five centuries before Wahhab was born. But Wahhab made a symbiotic alliance with the Saudis, so here we are…]

The debate of what Islam exactly was started during Muhammad’s lifetime. Actually, people closest to the Prophet tried to kill him by pushing his camel off a mountain path. (Muhammad knew who they were, but refused to say, lest they be killed, and Islam fractured.) Right after his death, things got way worse: the announcement of his death was delayed until Muhammad started to rot and balloon up, some verses of the Qur’an got eaten by a goat (Aisha told a furious sexist Omar), and so on. Omar and Abu Bakr (“brother” and father in law of Muhammad) grabbed power, and their version of the Qur’an. However, Uthman imposed his own Qur’an later, and an all-out Muslim against Muslim war started, with the closest people to Muhammad at each other’s throats… that war goes on to this day…

The Qur’an is around 80,000 words (I counted them myself!) It was controversially written/re-organized under the 4th Caliph. However, Islamist follow millions of “sacred” words often written many generations after the so-called “messenger’s death…

***

European Court Of Human Rights = European Court Of Islamization

A woman referred to as E.S. was convicted in Austria for talking about known events in Muhammad, the so-called “Messenger” of god, the great bully in heavens. In October 2018, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upheld this woman’s 2011 conviction for “disparagement of religious precepts,” a crime in Austria. The facts of what E.S. did are not in dispute. She held “seminars” in which she presented her view that Muhammad was indeed a child molester. Dominant Islamic traditions hold that Muhammad’s third wife, Aisha, was 6 at the time of their marriage and 9 at its consummation. That too, is not contested by the most hard core Jihhadists, Salafists, and Wahhabists: it’s in the sacred texts.

When Muhammad married 6 year old Aisha, he seems to have been in his early 50s (the age of the Prophet is quite uncertain, it turns out; don’t believe those who tell you Muhammad was exactly 54…) The Austrian woman repeated these claims, and the Austrian court ruled that she had to pay 480 euros or spend 60 days in prison. The ECHR ruled that Austria had not violated her rights.[1]

The ECHR wants us to lie about Islam, when telling what is in Islam texts is inconvenient. If we don’t, we have to go to prison:

When Muhammad married 6 year old Aisha, he seems to have been in his early 50s. The Austrian woman repeated these claims, and the Austrian court ruled that she had to pay 480 euros or spend 60 days in the slammer. The ECHR ruled that Austria had not violated her rights.[1]

Tell the truth about Muhammad Having Sex With Children, and the European Court of HUMAN RIGHTS will send you to prison for 60 days. Nevermind that these historical facts are front and central in the most basic Muslim texts. Solution? Bring political power to bear on these so-called “judges”.Here are some of the original texts from the Hadith:

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:

‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64

Narrated ‘Aisha:

that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65

Narrated ‘Aisha:

that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that ‘Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).” what you know of the Quran (by heart)’

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88

Narrated ‘Ursa:

The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with ‘Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Some Muslims claim that it was Abu Bakr who approached Muhammad asking him to marry his daughter. This is not true.

Sahih Bukhari 7.18

Narrated ‘Ursa:

The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for ‘Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said “But I am your brother.” The Prophet said, “You are my brother in Allah’s religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.”

***

The New York Times published a long article on anti-Judaism coming back to Germany. Long description, but zero explanation in depth. I sent a comment providing necessary depth:

The Abrahamic religions started with Judaism. Christianism was born, in Greek, during the war of fascist Rome against Judea. Christianism was friendly to Caesar, and enemy of Judaism (some view initial Christian texts as Flavian propaganda). Six centuries later, Islam appeared, considering Jews as even more wrong on Abraham than the Christians. Thus, both Christianism & Islamism have a strong antipathy to Judaism… Yet arose from it, so can’t just annihilate them, most of the time. Hence the ongoing scapegoating of Jews. This will go on as long as Abrahamism rules in the background!  

It got published, but not so the second one:
The moods created by religions it itself brought to life, caused much of the mood against Judaism (Roman imperial rage against Israel helped the process). Western anti-Judaism was greatly caused by Christianism. A common myth among intellectuals, Muslims and others who don’t know Islam well, including occidental islamophiles, is that Islam has nothing to do with anti-Judaism. Some academics even lie. As the NYT says: “Many Muslims criticize the notion of “Muslim anti-Semitism” as wrongly suggesting that hatred of Jews is intrinsic to their faith. Muhammad Sameer Murtaza, a German scholar of Islam who has written extensively on anti-Semitism, argues that European anti-Semitism was exported to the Middle East in the 19th century and was only “Islamized” starting in the late 1930s…”

This is gross disinformation, fake news. There is massive anti-Judaism in the Qur’an…. And it is found in later, “Meccan”, abrogating verses (so nice, pro-Jewish verses don’t count). An example is from the second and longest chapter of the Quran, the Cow: Quran 2;61 says: “And abasement and poverty were pitched upon them [Jews], and they were laden with the burden of God’s anger; that, because they had disbelieved the signs of God and slain the Prophets unrightfully; that, because they disobeyed, and were transgressors.”

Naturally the Hadith went further. Islam in its fundamental texts is lethally anti-Judaic. Here is an example: the following is part of Hamas’ constitution.  

This is 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…”

The verses in the Qur’an nasty for Jews are from the 13 year long Meccan period, after Muhammad 10 year stay in Jewish city Yathrib (now Medina). Thus they abrogate the earlier verses.

It is high time to realize that the elites in charge of the European Union have been serving themselves, and the conception of elite, the Davos Club, they profit from. In particular, not enough Euros have been created. In particular, Europe has not been defended against exporting jobs, most of them to China. Make no mistake: I am pro-Chinese. However, at this point, China is on its way to the Moon, and Europe on its way to oblivion.

Macron may mean well, but he acts weak, because he is fundamentally a creature of financial plutocracy, which has been ruling the world (but not China). A few months ago, I would have advised to vote Macron. But that was before he absolutely refused to enable RIC, Referendums on Initiatives from the Citizens (in his last version, he still wants 182 French MPs to agree, plus one million signature; one million should be enough… the number of signatures is roughly in line with California)

We need tougher solutions in Europe, don’t vote weak.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1] Here is the introduction and beginning of the ECHR’s judgement: on the face of it the judges of the ECHR take us for terrorized idiots without dignity. The gist of it is that if an Islamist marries a 6 year old, and has sex with her when she is 9, that does NOT show the Islamist “has had paedophilic tendencies”… and to say so hurts Islamists, and that latter fact is against European law.

 

“In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of E.S. v. Austria (application no. 38450/12) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been: no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the applicant’s conviction for disparaging religious doctrines; she had made statements suggesting that Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies. The Court found in particular that the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria. It held that by considering the impugned statements as going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate, and by classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam which could stir up prejudice and threaten religious peace, the domestic courts put forward relevant and sufficient reasons.

 

Principal facts The applicant, E.S., is an Austrian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Vienna (Austria). In October and November 2009, Mrs S. held two seminars entitled “Basic Information on Islam”, in which she discussed the marriage between the Prophet Muhammad and a six-year old girl, Aisha, which allegedly was consummated when she was nine. Inter alia, the applicant stated that Muhammad “liked to do it with children” and “… A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? … What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?”. On 15 February 2011 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court found that these statements implied that Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies, and convicted Mrs S. for disparaging religious doctrines. She was ordered to pay a fine of 480 euros and the costs of the proceedings. Mrs S. appealed but the Vienna Court of Appeal upheld the decision in December 2011, confirming in essence the lower court’s findings. A request for the renewal of the proceedings was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 11 December 2013. Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mrs S. complained that the domestic courts failed to address the substance of the impugned statements in the light of her right to freedom of expression. If they had done so, they would not have qualified them as mere value judgments but as value judgments based on facts. Furthermore, her criticism of Islam occurred in the framework of an objective and lively discussion which contributed to a public debate”

 

Here is the name of the Wahhabismophile so-called “judges”.

 

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows: Angelika Nußberger (Germany), President, André Potocki (France), Síofra O’Leary (Ireland), Mārtiņš Mits (Latvia), Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer (Austria), Lәtif Hüseynov (Azerbaijan), Lado Chanturia (Georgia), and also Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar

 

The European Court Of Human Rights seems as confused as a group of six year old children. Here is the core of their decision. Notice the absurdities:

 

“The Court noted that the domestic courts comprehensively explained why they considered that the applicant’s statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation; specifically, they had not been made in an objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest (e.g. on child marriage), but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship. It agreed with the domestic courts that Mrs S. must have been aware that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse indignation in others. The national courts found that Mrs S. had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia as his general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue.”

 

So “applicant’s statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation; specifically, they had not been made in an objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest (e.g. on child marriage), but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship.”

 

So the ECHR thinks that relating what is in Islamist texts demonstrate Muhammad is not worthy of worship?” And why should a human rights court care?

 

[The ECHR] “agreed… Mrs S. had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia as his general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue.”

 

Now why would one worship someone who children (pedo) love (philia) so much in a perverted way they have sex with them at age 9? Can the dimwits at the ECHR give us one, just ONE, other historical example. Just one, “Human Rights” buffoons, in the entire history of civilization (examples of royal children married early exist, but they were between the children themselves, and were not consummated, be it only for the good and simple reason prepubescent children are not sexually equipped.

 

Muhammad was a child rapist, and, moreover, his followers were so blind, they didn’t notice to this day, although the facts are in the very book they allegedly got from their so-called “god”, through aforesaid child rapist.

 

OK, agreed, Muhammad was an excellent, good natured, gifted and enlightened rapist; Aisha ended up loving him sincerely, and he let her roam, and being strong and free. Aisha famously asserted Muhammad was much less sexist than his successors….

 

More from the mental dwarves at the ECHR:

“The Court found in conclusion that in the instant case the domestic courts carefully balanced the applicant’s right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society. 3 The Court held further that even in a lively discussion it was not compatible with Article 10 of the Convention to pack incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable expression of opinion and claim that this rendered passable those statements exceeding the permissible limits of freedom of expression…

The judgment is available only in English.”

Why only in English? Because it were in Austrian language, which is German, it would use the same buzz words as the Nazis? Yes, it would! The ECHR dimwits, so ignorant of history, obviously do not know of the strong connections between nazism and islam, enduring to this day. Right, Nazism is dead, but the Muslim Brotherhood it helped to create, is alive and well!

***

P/S: A reader reminded me of an enormity: Muhammad died when Aisha was eighteen. The enormity? The Qur’an itself ordered that she should never re-marry:

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL. Qur’an, Surah 33, Verse 53:
“O you who have believed, do not enter the houses of the Prophet except when you are permitted for a meal, without awaiting its readiness. But when you are invited, then enter; and when you have eaten, disperse without seeking to remain for conversation. Indeed, that [behavior] was troubling the Prophet, and he is shy of [dismissing] you. But Allah is not shy of the truth. And when you ask [his wives] for something, ask them from behind a partition. That is purer for your hearts and their hearts. And it is not [conceivable or lawful] for you to harm the Messenger of Allah or to marry his wives after him, ever. Indeed, that would be in the sight of Allah an enormity.”

Charlie Manson & The Qur’an

Madness, A Mood, Can Be Contagious:

Madness is not just a disease, but also controlled, and impelled, to some extent, as a mood. Moreover, tolerance to madness is itself a contagious disease.

One modern proof? Some forms of madness in individuals can be mitigated by drugs. However, the patients’ state is improved if they undergo “Cognitive (Behavioral or not) Therapy”. They can learn that they are subject to madness (and when it’s coming), and learn to mitigate their crises..

Madness in individuals is not viewed as madness, in a mad society. Believing that the “Free Market” was a civilization, belongs to the same general tolerance to madness as the Qur’an is a civilization. A youngish French pundit (totally white and not at all Muslim, but a vague leftist) just boldly asserted on ONPC, one of the most popular show in France, that the Islamist State had nothing to do with the Qur’an. Clearly, he never read the Qur’an. I propose that he goes to Raqqa and teach the Qur’an to the Islamist State, this way, the world will be safer: what is more dangerous that unfathomable stupidity?

Smiling Manson: Thought Criminal Convicted To Nine Life Terms For Thought Crime Inducing Lethal Inclinations

[The BBC published this photo, after erasing the Swastika, weirdly enough. That shows a drastic lack of culture on its part: just as Hitler found his “Fuererprinzip” in the Qur’an (see below), he found the Swastika in Indian religions: Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism(s). Hitler was apparently better read than (some at) the BBC.]

One ancient proof that madness arise from culture-wide moods?

Watch the Romans dissecting chickens before a potential battle, to see if it should be engaged. That was obviously idiotic. One of the first Roman admirals was told by the local Imam (‘augure”) that the sacred chickens would not drink, a bad omen, and thus that battle should not be engaged, according to the respected Roman state religion. Irritated, the admiral grabbed the chickens, and threw them in the sea:’Now they will drink!’ (He lost the battle.)

Ultimately, the superstitious Roman religion was put in doubt by the tolerance extended to all the non-human sacrificial religions: the Roman saw that religions could be anything. However emperors could also see that Monotheism, started by an Egyptian Pharaoh, then amplified by the Jews, would be most useful to their rule.

Monotheism extends the Fascist Principle to the universe: everybody has a chief, everybody obeys that chief absolutely. Adolf Hitler may well as found in the Qur’an (as Sura IV, Verse 59).

“O Ye Who Believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and OBEY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN POWER.”

Charlie Manson was a Californian sect leader who was accused to have indoctrinated followers in such a way that they engaged in several deadly attacks (the eighth month pregnant wife of Roman Polanski, the actress Sharon tate, was butchered alive in one of these). Manson was condemned to death (commuted later to life).

The prosecution argued the triggering of “Helter Skelter” was Manson’s main motive. Manson had been impressed by a song in the Beatles’ White Album. References to that song were left (pig, rise, helter skelter). Manson predicted that the murders blacks would commit at the outset of Helter Skelter would involve the writing of “pigs” on walls in victims’ blood. Manson was viewed as responsible, although he was not at the crime scene, nor gave direct orders.

It was all completely insane. But human minds are fragile. As long as criminally insane discourses are held in books claiming to be orders from god, one should not be surprised that the unsatisfied and frustrated will find all the excuses they need there to get on a rampage.

This has now happened several times in the USA. The terrorism in San Bernardino, by a couple who pledged obedience to the Islamist State, is the latest example.

We are victims: everywhere an ambiance of terror is rising (schools, for example, have to prepare for the worst, a worst that was unimaginable in the 1960s: only the Nazis attacked schools). It brings up the police state.

And all this because a religion of hatred was preached. Several Imams in France and Switzerland, are, suddenly, under criminal investigation (at least three were financed by Saudi princes)… for preaching the sacred book, as it is. Why did it take so long? Because the mood was that Islamophilia was anti-racism?

What is the difference between a “sacred” book full of hatred and explicit orders to kill, with Charlie Manson’s  rambling, viciously aggressive discourses? Philosophers want to know. All right, I am unfair to Charlie Manson, who was not convicted for giving explicit orders to kill. The general mood Manson created was viewed as responsible enough, of the murders which happened.

The French president, last week, in stroke of Enlightenment, declared that the present war was not a clash of civilization:

“We are not committed to a war of civilizations, because these assassins don’t represent any civilization,” Hollande said. “We are in a war against terrorism, jihadism, which threatens the whole world.”

A religion was indeed never a civilization. At least in the West (be it only because, in the West, there were always several religions, Judaism one of them, in spite of centuries of frantic mass murdering by Christian fanatics.)

“Christian Civilization” never existed: the law used in Europe, except in the most savage parts and times, was actually ROMAN LAW (or Frankish/Salian law… which had been written by Roman lawyers, in Latin). Saint Louis wanted to kill Jews and Unbelievers (!), but he recognized that was against the law, he wrote. Roman Law itself was pretty much independent from Roman Superstition (aka Roman Religion). When Roman emperor Justinian ordered a refurbishment of Roman Law around 540 CE, he explicitly ordered to separate the religious/superstitious aspects from SECULAR LAW.

So, indeed, “We are in a war against terrorism, Jihadism, which threatens the whole world.”

Yes, and please remind me who wrote, and where is written, the theory of Jihadism? And why is that theory of Jihadism, that those who kill as ordered by Allah go directly to Paradise, still preached? You want safety? Make it unlawful. Or, more precisely, just apply existing laws against hate crimes. And then punish it so hard, that it will stop.

Patrice Ayme’

Think Or Sink: Top Jihadist Killed

The fight between French police and Jihadists in Saint Denis was so violent, that part of the building collapsed and carpenters were moved in to hold build structures to shore up the building as the enquiry proceeds (including DNA collect).

It was a gory fight: one Jihadist got an exploding grenade in the belly, spilling his unworthy guts all over. The shootout was so severe, it’s not clear whether 2 or 3 terrorists were killed. One of the corpses was so riddled with bullets, it was not clear who he was. He was identified by his prints.

It turned out to be the most wanted terrorist in the world, 28 year old Abdelhamid Abaaoud.

This Belgian Muslim, native from a Jihad city in Belgium, organized many successful attacks (at least 6) and several were carried out, including the ones in Paris last week. His ascent in the Islamist State was fast. Interestingly he went in and out of Europe in the last few months, although he had the time to drag for Western TV many bodies behind a SUV. That Abaaoud could come and go at will condemns the present European security system. Europe needs a kind of FBI or FSB. Once again, more, and fiercer United States of Europe are needed, here purely for security reasons.

The Republic Protects Its Property, Notre Dame

The commando was planning two attacks against Paris’ largest and most famous department stores (apparently a tip from Moroccan intelligence helped).

French forensic experts are examining remains of the woman who blew herself up. She is believed to be Islamic State’s Hasna Aitboulahcen. The Frenchwoman, aged 26, was heard engaging in an hysterical exchange with police shortly before she triggered a suicide belt. At some point, she screamed: “HELP ME, HELP ME, HELP ME!” to the police, which, in reply told her to come out hands up.

Aitboulahcen, a cousin of Abdelhamid Abaaoud, was “extrovert”, “bubbly” and a “bit lost”. “She didn’t look like a suicide bomber and she drank alochol,” one of her young neighbours at the Impasse du Dauphin told the local newspaper Le Républicain Lorrain. “We saw her quite often and we called her the cowgirl because she always wore a large hat.” She was a “tomboy” who dressed in jeans, trainers and a black hat until she began wearing a niqab eight months ago.

Analyzing her patterns from various surveillance led the RAID (French SWAT) to attack at 4:20 am a building full of low lives.

The French Parliament has extended the state of emergency for a further three months. Hopefully things will be taken more seriously than in 1939-1940.

PM Valls admitted that one could fear a chemical, or biological attack. (One more reason to annihilate the Islamist State fast!) At least one, maybe two, of the November 13 terrorists are still on the run.

The Islamist State gets roughly two million dollars a day from selling oil, at half price on the black market (enabled by plutocrats). That was until the Franco-Russian bombing campaign against oil installations. This week.

The Islamist State also makes drugs, and sells them, earning at least half a million dollars a day. One of these drugs is Captagon, an ex-medical drug, related to amphetamines, outlawed since 1986 because it makes people crazy. Attacking terrorists are full of Captagon and cocaine. Makes them fearless. There too, the plutocrats are a crucial link.

A few months ago, a Saudi prince was arrested in Beirut, Lebanon. He had six tons of Captagon in his private jet. Captagon costs nothing to make, but sells around fifty dollars a pill.

Meanwhile the French Prime Minister received the PM of Qatar. Qatar, at the very least, enables the Islamist State, and, at worst, finances it. Saudi Arabia and the likes of Qatar have to be told, strongly

The novelist Michel Houellebecq struck hard in a commentary on Corriere de la Sera, and the New York Times. What he says is part of what I have long said, for example in:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/05/21/war-versus-direct-democracy/

“The Opinion Pages | Op-Ed Contributor

Michel Houellebecq: How France’s Leaders Failed Its People

By MICHEL HOUELLEBECQ, NOV. 19, 2015  

Paris — IN the aftermath of the January attacks in Paris, I spent two days transfixed watching the news. In the aftermath of the Nov. 13 attacks, I hardly turned on the television; I just called the people I knew (no small number) who lived in the neighborhoods that were hit. You get used to terrorist attacks.

In 1986, there was a series of bombings in various public places in Paris. I think Hezbollah was behind those attacks. They occurred a few days, or maybe a week, apart; I’ve forgotten exactly. But I remember very well the atmosphere in the subway that first week. The silence inside the cars was absolute, and people exchanged glances loaded with suspicion.

That was the first week. And then, soon enough, conversations resumed, the mood returned to normal. The prospect of another imminent explosion was still there in everyone’s mind, but it had retreated into the background. You get used to terrorist attacks.

France will hold on. The French will hold on, without even needing a “sursaut national,” a national pushback reflex. They’ll hold on because there’s no other way, and because you get used to everything. No human force, not even fear, is stronger than habit.

“Keep calm and carry on.” All right, then, that’s just what we’ll do (even though, alas, there is no Churchill to lead us). Despite the common perception, the French are rather docile, rather easy to govern. But they are not complete idiots. Instead, their main flaw is a kind of forgetful frivolity that necessitates jogging their memory from time to time.

There are people, political people, who are responsible for the unfortunate situation we find ourselves in today, and sooner or later their responsibility will have to be examined. It’s unlikely that the insignificant opportunist who passes for our head of state, or the congenital moron who plays the part of our prime minister, or even the “stars of the opposition” (LOL) will emerge from the test looking any brighter.

Who exactly weakened the capacities of the police forces until they were totally on edge and almost incapable of fulfilling their mission? Who exactly drilled into our heads for years the notion that borders were a quaint absurdity, and evidence of a foul and rancid nationalism?

The blame, as one can see, is widely shared.

Which political leaders committed France to ridiculous and costly operations whose main result has been to plunge Iraq, and then Libya, into chaos? And which political leaders were, until recently, on the verge of doing the same thing in Syria?

(I was forgetting: We didn’t go into Iraq, not the second time. But it was close, and it looks as though Dominique de Villepin, then minister of foreign affairs, will go down in history for that reason — which is not nothing — for having prevented France, for the one and only time in its recent history, from participating in a criminal operation that also distinguished itself for its stupidity.)

The obvious conclusion is scathing, unfortunately. For 10 (20? 30?) years, our successive governments have pathetically, systematically, deplorably failed in their essential mission: to protect the population under their responsibility.

As for the population, it hasn’t failed at all. It’s unclear, at bottom, exactly what the population thinks, since our successive governments have taken great care not to hold referendums (except for one, in 2005, on a proposed European constitution, whose result they then preferred to ignore).

But opinion polls are allowed, and for what they’re worth, they more or less reveal the following: that the French population has always maintained its trust in and solidarity with its police officers and its armed forces. That it has largely been repelled by the sermonizing airs of the so-called moral left (moral?) concerning how migrants and refugees are to be treated. That it has never viewed without suspicion the foreign military adventures its governments have seen fit to join.

One could cite many more examples of the gap, now an abyss, between the population and those supposed to represent it. The discredit that applies to all political parties today isn’t just huge; it is legitimate.

And it seems to me, it really seems to me, that the only solution still available to us now is to move gently toward the only form of real democracy: I mean, direct democracy.

MH

(Michel Houellebecq is the author, most recently, of the novel “Submission.”)

Funny how the Main Stream Media (MSM), usually busy censoring me, when not outright banning me, is calling to a market certified writer of bedtime stories, instead of a real philosopher. Funny, but typical. In France the wildly respected “La Grande Librairie” shows an unending parade of success authors who are as dumb as they are imagination deprived (I record the show, but find it more boring than washing dishes, a time when I can listen to myself, instead of rich, fashionable idiots).

This being said, I approve much of Houellebecq’s message above (although I disagree 100% about Libya. The problem in Libya was no follow up; and it’s not too late for that; I also disagree about borders). I sent the following comment (it was immediately censored: NYT has faithfully censored me about terrorism, it’s the apparent religion there; if I  made a comment about olive oil, The Guardian censors me, better safe than sorry… If you preach the Qur’an, they love you, if you preach the truth, they hate you, it all fits very well together):

Patrice Ayme: We have to change our philosophical attitude relative to reality. “Radical Islam” is, as its name indicates, and as the Islamist State forcefully insists, the roots (that’s what radical means) of Islam.

There are literally hundreds of verses in the holy Qur’an, which guide the Islamist State. Moreover, both taqiyyah (lying for the faith) and the doctrine which says that older verses are overruled by more recent ones, established the hierarchy of values which guide radical Islamism.

More precisely, Islam out of the Qur’an, direct and literal is, clearly a call to war against most categories of people. This is neither known, nor, a fortiori, understood. Why? My personal experience is revealing: I quoted the Qur’an many times in comments to the Main Stream Media, and was censored, every single time. This is extraordinary: let’s imagine that I quoted the Bible. Would I be censored? Even the Islamist State does not censor the Qur’an! Instead, the Islamist State applies a strict interpretation of the Islamist doctrine.

Thus, one must recognize that Salafism (that is, the way of the old ones), literal Islam out of the Qur’an is not acceptable (not anymore as a strict application of the Bible would be tolerable). Instead of has to promote an Islam submissive to the laws of the Republic and Democracy. As “Islam” means “Submission”, one has just to say Islam is Submission to Republic and Democracy. “Democracy” = People-Rule. It does not mean that an oligarchy of politicians rule.

The West has rotten by the head. Plutocracy, austerity, terrorism, the destruction of the biosphere, are just consequences of this general failure.

Meanwhile, I will revert to listening to the congenital opportunist morons who take themselves for leaders. Especially the way the presidential idiot ends nearly every single sentence as if he were a little girl of a particularly weak disposition, on the verge of bursting in tears. My own daughter, who just turned six, has a much firmer voice.

And the weakness of Hollande and the “congenital moron who plays Prime Minister” is not just cosmetic: since the attacks against Charlie Hebdo, they did basically NOTHING. The rector of the Paris Mosque is indignant and astounded that NO Salafist mosque was shut down. Ever. He says it’s a police problem, a non-respect of the law of the Republic, and he calls for the shutting down of Salafism (which he class “Non-Islamist”: I would say the same if I were him, just as he would say what I say, if he were me!)

Think. Or sink.

Patrice Ayme’

Leveraged Morality Needed

New Morality, Greece, Final Solution, Poisonous Apple, Mayhem, etc.

We live in a highly leveraged world. Not only do we have H bombs, but smart phones, for years, have been smarter at chess than any human player, by a very long shot.

Maybe we should exert our minds with higher pursuits than chess. Morality comes to mind.

In highly leveraged world, morality, too, has to be highly leveraged.

One cannot just condemn guilty acts, one has to condemn the ideas and moods which led to these guilty acts, when they can be discerned.

Thus the more advanced morality we need requires more discernment, more… discrimination.

A French Jihadist, Mohammed Merah, ambushed French paratroopers, one by one. He ordered one of them to kneel. The paratrooper refused. He was shot to death, standing up. He was also a Muslim (and his mother, who is deeply republican, wears a scarf).

How do we know this? Merah was wearing video equipment. That means he was sure to be acting in the name of righteousness (who is more righteous than Allah?)

Merah went to shoot children at a Jewish elementary school (that was also the plan in the latest Paris attacks, but the terrorist had to switch to a Jewish supermarket).

One of the little girls fled. Merah pursued the seven year old, grabbed her by the hair, and shot her to death. This is all on video. Such videos should be shown.

They should be shown, because horror motivates to ask the question: what is it in the systems of thought and moods the likes of Merah believe in, that led them to behave exactly as the very worst SS? (Those who read this site religiously know the answer.)

An ex-French justice minister, main proponent of the outlawing of the death penalty in France, Badinter was relating this, and reflecting that, after 70 years of commemorations of the Holocaust, one came back to the same anti-Jewish hatred as when the Nazis reigned.

Badinter said that he believed there was a Dark Side to man. He stopped there.

Indeed, there is a Dark Side, and I know exactly where it comes from.

It’s an evolutionary advantageous trait.

One plays with it, at one’s own risk.

The world grab of plutocrats is exactly the sort of things hatred is supposed to address (Hitler was already riling against “plutocrats”… However, Obama-like, he was financed and propped by them!)

What Badinter ought to ask, is why people such as Merah have so much hatred?

Syriza, the Greek left, has the same program as the French Socialists had in 2012. So Syriza is standard socialism.

The French Socialists did not deliver. Not just that, but the Dear French Socialists, headed by an investment banker, Macron, are trying to pass a law preventing blasphemy… about high finance. The interesting question is why this is happening. Is it just greed, or realizing that the world, headed by Obama’s sponsors, is too mighty to be changed, and thus collaboration is best, as under Vichy?

Meanwhile, people get jailed in Egypt for atheism. New York Time’s Egypt’s War on Atheism

“It took one session on Jan. 10 for a court in the Nile Delta … to sentence Karim al-Banna, a 21-year-old student, to three years in prison for saying … that he was an atheist… Mr. Banna was originally arrested, in November, when he went to the police to complain that his neighbors were harassing him… his name had appeared in a local newspaper on a list of known atheists. Instead of protecting him, the police accused him of insulting Islam.”

Whining about Insulting Islam is the gift that keeps on giving… Secularism is about living in one’s age. This is what the word “secularism” means. It is actually a neutral concept.

Those who impose a particular god are obviously not living in our age. Indeed, in this age, thanks to the Internet, all those who know how to read know of many gods. Hinduism proposes already a million gods. Which one to choose? Why to choose one? Most of these gods are more than twice older than Muslim god, or his “messenger”.

So choosing a particular god of the past is to choose a particular view point from the past. Imposing this shrunk, obsolete version of the world, makes for very small cultures and the small minds they spawned.

This creates countries that do not compete very well economically and culturally. Such countries are poor and engaged in a vicious spiral down the drain of history.

Thus imposing theocracy while so many other countries are (mostly) secularist is a great disservice to Egypt. Laicity, the opposite of the choosing of particular god(s) is not just superior philosophically, and culturally, it’s the easiest way to higher economic performance.

So, if theocracy is such a terrible thing, why does it arise? Because theocracy is oppressive, and, thus, justifies oppression. All the way to the bottom of souls.

Theocracy is the best friend of those who take themselves for gods… And that is why theocracy is generally imposed by generals (Constantine and Theodosius were the Roman emperors who imposed Christianism; Muhammad and the early Caliphs were all war chiefs).

So do not ask how to stop the hatred. Asked, instead how it got started.

In Europe, clearly, making everybody poorer in job prospects, education and wealth, played a role. And this is not a problem localized in Europe, with European solutions. Quite the opposite. By refusing to reduce its emissions of carbons in the last 30 years, the USA and its Chinese pet, gained a huge economic advantage.

Apple just made PROFITS (profits, not just revenue) of 18 billion dollars. In three months. Yes eighteen billion. Selling 74 million smart phones, a lot of them in China. I guess the little plot is going strong. This is the largest profits by a corporation, ever (including the oil giants in their rimes).

Apple ferries hundreds of billions of profit through the tiny, tax-free British Virgin Island. 

A world like that will lead to ever more Jihadism, and bigger and better weapons can be had, thus forcing us into ever more of a police state.

Humiliating people leads to revolt, and revolt, rebellion, lead to progress, by throwing down hateful moods and ideas. So it always has been, so it always will be.

Patrice Ayme’

THOUGHT CRIMES

Let’s reflect upon Prophet Muhammad alleged genocidal statement, according to some of his followers:

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…”

[Several other Hadiths convey the same order to kill all Jews. It is viewed as a most significant, sacred text of Islam, part of Hamas Constitution!]

***

This is not just about “Jews”. Once one had decided that a category of innocents, here some people one has decided to call “Jews”, who have done nothing, but have been pointed at, should be killed, any other category of people can be killed too, from a similar murderous inclination.

Some say that Freedom of Expression means that one can say anything. That’s completely false. There is such a thing as a “Thought Crime”, once a murderous thought targeting innocent people is propagandized, especially out of a context mitigating it. Republican civilization has to strike down such type of expression, and it already does. It is a question of survival of optimal civilization. This rigor has to be deployed against incompatible ideologies, such as Salafism!

Maybe, some will suggest, it means one can say anything if it is clearly a work of fiction? Not really: a line has been drawn with evoking some types of crimes against minors. That line was drawn into legislation, worldwide.
(Even the USA, a country which officially violates the Conventions on the Rights of Children, applies said legislation, and countless websites have been closed and criminals prosecuted, just for suggesting what could be interpreted as leading to crimes against children, a case of over-sensitivity…)
Try to make death threats against the president of the USA, on line, or in a private group. Rightly so, you will be prosecuted. Actually plausible death threats against anybody will generally result in prosecution.

Respect The Faith Of Murderers, Says Pope Francis

[Old “Blasphemous CH covers;  Left: 100 Lashes, if you are not dead from laughter; Right: Put a veil on Charlie Hebdo. Notice that it is the fanatics themselves who decide that their so-called “Prophet” talks that way, and is thereby represented! So they are the ones engaging in blasphemy!]

Threatening to kill children and other horrendous suggestions, are, by themselves, crimes. Why? Two reasons: first, they create a climate of terror. That, by itself, is not just an aggression, but an injury, and it can result in fighting, or even death (in diverse fashions).

Secondly, floating around horrible propositions is suggestive that to engage in them would be a good thing.

In physics, much progress was brought by considering “THOUGHT experiments”. Buridan may have been the first, when he explained the Heliocentric system around 1320 CE. Galileo repeated basically the same idea by pointing out that physics was left intact, deep in the dark recesses of a moving boat. Newton later illustrated that a projectile sent with great velocity parallel to the surface of the Earth would fall around (another dressing of Buridan’s idea).

So I want to introduce THOUGHT CRIMES.

They already exist, pointwise. In countries which suffered the most of Nazism, such as France and Germany, it is against the law to deny the facts of Nazism.

So now I see (on German TV) demonstrators in (some) “Muslim” countries carrying posters saying “Help our Kouachi Brothers”. The Kouachis were the two brothers who attacked Charlie Hebdo under order from the co-founder of Al Qaeda, Ayman Al Zawahiri (the USA has a 25 million dollar reward for him).

Al Zawahiri’s wife was below part of a house in Afghanistan demolished by an American bombing. She “refused to be excavated” because “men would see her face”. While the rescuers were arguing with her, her unhurt 4 year old daughter died from exposure in the very cold Afghan winter night. Zawahiri said that was good that the little girl died, because she won’t be an orphan.

You see, there is such a thing as absolute morality. It’s given by the ethology, the behavior, which enables the survival of the species. It comes straight from our Creator, tens of millions of years of evolution of our species. Contradicting this: immorality.

Human females had faces human males could see, for millions of years. By refusing this, and imposing that denial of reality to others, with lethal consequences, Muslim theoreticians of that fanatical persuasion make themselves lower than animals, in the sense that they do not allow, not just our survival, but even that of the species.

Bin Laden’s official biographer admitted that Zawahiri was the “real brains” behind Al Qaeda”. Zawahiri, an Egyptian, entered the “Muslim Brotherhood” at 14.
There we are. It ought to be a crime to expose young, 14 year old people to criminal thinking. Zawahiri is not stupid: he is a trained surgeon. But he was imprinted at such an early age into (violent) Islamist verses and commands. See the Hadith 41; 6985, one of many, explicitly about killing Jews.

One ought to criminalize criminal imprinting. And first of all that of youth.

One has the right to criticize an idea, a concept, a religion, the powers that be, a system of thought, an emotion, or a system of mood. But one does not have the right to attack people physically and to incite hate (so that others, in turn, will be inclined to attack the people who are hated, physically).

Have a look again at 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…”

The “last hour” is the Day of Judgment (as found already in the Bible). When …”Allah will admit those who believe and do righteous deeds to gardens beneath which rivers flow. They will be adorned therein with bracelets of gold and pearl, and their garments therein will be silk.” (Qur’an S22; v23)… others will meet a “painful punishment.”

Proposing that everybody good will be rewarded and the miscreants punished only after the Jews will be killed seems to me to be hate speech. From Allah’s Messenger, that is, Muhammad (supposing it was faithfully related by Sahih Al Muslim). It is to be feared that, left to be literally interpreted, this statement will bring many a Jihadist, to conclude it is a religious duty to kill the Jews.

Can the statement be mitigated? Sunni Islam has no professional priests (supposedly). Once I met a real blonde in New York City. A real blonde in several senses of the term. She told me she switched from fanatical Catholicism to fanatical Islam, not just because she fell in love with the local Imam, but because Islam had no priests (and she probably disliked their moral commands, and lack of balls, to put it as it was, between the lines; she is still at it, decades later, teaching Jihadism in the greater New York area).
The lack of professionalism in Islam teaching means that, if an Imam mitigates Hadith 41; 6985 (above), a terrorist can show up, and claim that the Imam is an apostate (he has “left Islam” and thus, ought to be killed).

Solution? Have agents of the Republic at the ready, supporting mitigating Islam teachers (official Imama, paid by the State; those already exist in Belgium).

Each time a fanatical Muslim shows up, loudly interpreting Muslim sacred texts such as Hadith 41;6985, kill the Jews, literally, and making threats, have them arrested, and put in isolation in prison (so that they cannot engage in proselytism; Salafist proselytism connects with organized crime, and is extremely well financed by the oil propelled, feudal terrorist powers of the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia).

The notion of THOUGHT CRIME has proven useful against a resurgence of Nazism. Denying the facts of the Shoah is enough to send someone to prison in Franco-Germania.

As humanity depends ever more crucially upon truth regarding basic facts, criminal thought systems ought to be crushed. This is the most basic way in which Voltaire’s command to “crush infamy” has to be implemented.

Some are bound to say: ’Oh, you are just like the Jihadists. They kill because people don’t think right, and you want to jail people because they don’t think right.’

Not so: I am for all thinking, and feeling absolutely anything, as long as it does not result in severely adverse consequences to others, or the human species’, or intelligence’s prospects.

“In France, one can draw everything, including the prophet,” Justice Minister Christiane Taubira said, and she is right, and I approve.

We depend crucially of truth, and increasingly so, as we are becoming like gods, with ever increasing powers. But we don’t want to be like Darth Vader in Star Wars, and blow up planets, just because we can. Actually, Darth Vader is modelled after the god of the Bible and Qur’an, getting to order whatever atrocities, just because he can.
I advocated setting up a Ministry of Truth. Ministry of Outrageous Potentially Lethal Lies maybe a better concept. For example, when fossil fuel companies pay for disseminating lies about the gathering atrocity (I weight my word) they are contributing to, by some of their actions, they ought to be prosecuted.

Any human organization that is large enough (so I am deliberately excluding small public associations, including small and medium companies) has a fiduciary duty.

Example: the Pope just supported, in context, the attack against Charlie Hebdo, and against a Jewish supermarket. At this point, a week later, we are talking about two dozen people dead, and many grievously wounded. A plot against Belgian police and justice by Jihadists, related to the French attacks, has forced to protect police stations and courts with special forces and mobilize the army to help (for the first time).

The Pope said, that’s all right, “it’s normal, it’s human nature. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”

Even the Sidney Herald recognizes that: “The Pope Sides With Muslim Faithful in Charlie Hebdo Debate…” Faithful Muslim? It is more like fanatical Muslim. The Pope is an accomplice of murderous Jihadism, after the facts, in a horrendous context. That makes him the most famous fanatical propagandist at the head of the largest institution. He should be prosecuted, at least intellectually.
Patrice Ayme’

***

Note: 1) Jews were “cursed and changed into rats” in Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:54:524, Sahih Muslim, 42:7135, Sahih Muslim, 42:7136.

2) Ordering to kill Jews is also found in: Sahih Muslim, 41:6981, Sahih Muslim, 41:6982, Sahih Muslim, 41:6983, Sahih Muslim, 41:6984, Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:56:791,(Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:177)

3) The Qur’an says that the apes and swines one sees were, actually, Jews (in three Quranic verses: 5;60, 2;65 and 7;166). In connection with the Hadith of the style above, this gave a clear “imperative“.  A May 2006 study of Saudi Arabia’s schoolbooks curriculum discovered that the eighth grade books included the following statements:
“They are the people of the Sabbath, whose young people God turned into apes, and whose old people God turned into swine to punish them. As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the keepers of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christian infidels of the communion of Jesus. ”

“ Some of the people of the Sabbath were punished by being turned into apes and swine. Some of them were made to worship the devil, and not God, through consecration, sacrifice, prayer, appeals for help, and other types of worship. Some of the Jews worship the devil. Likewise, some members of this nation worship devil, and not God. ”

Saudi textbooks for 9th graders teach that “the annihilation of the Jewish people is imperative.“

It goes without saying that this sort of lethally criminal pedagogy based on superstition should be internationally punished, according to international law to be drafted, absolutely. (By the way, some of the Sunni tradition found natural, as the transformation into apes and swines had be done to the Jews, to extent the courtesy to… Shiites; so it is that propaganda created there, against a particular group of innocents, extents naturally to another group… It always works that way.)

Fix Iraq? Judge Bush

The war started by G.W. Bush in 2003 is still on-going. The quick gains of 11,000 Islamist warriors, routing a much larger “Iraqi” army is explained only by the support of the Sunni population and of many of those who made Iraq work, before Bush destroyed it.

That Jihadist army is an international body headed by Iraqis (of Al Qaeda obedience, in the past), financed by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, sprinkled with some of Saddam Hussein’s generals and even some French (!) and Chechen. After the rout of Wednesday, Iran immediately rushed military “advisers” to the Shiite power in Baghdad. (Iran hated Saddam Hussein, and hates the Sunnis, all the more as the most sacred Shiite sites are south of Baghdad.)

Our Leaders: Greedy Mass Murderers

The mistake the USA made was to dissolve the 700,000 strong Iraqi army and the Baathist, secular party that held Iraq as a civil society. That mistake was actually a crime, a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention outlaws the destruction of a state. That the state was deliberately dismantled by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld is beyond question: so thorough was the dismantlement of the state, that all-important Iraqi museums and archeological sites were left defenseless.

Thus Bush and his ilk attacked not just Iraq, but all of humanity, not just by the atrocious examples they gave, but by the destruction of humanity’s memory.

Bush used to repeat: ”Saddam Hussein killed his own people.” Right, and Bush killed many times more. During the Iraq-Iran war, a war the West perhaps instigated, and, certainly actively supported and collaborated with, 5,000 civilian Kurds got chemically assassinated. Hussein and “Chemical Ali” were judged for this, and executed.

However, the number of Iraqis killed, after Bush’s attack, and consecutive to it, is of the order of 500,000, or maybe much more. So:

Saddam: 5,000 killed. Hanged.

Bush: 500,000+ killed. Painting.

Blair: 500,000+ killed. Still an authority of the EU, loudly praying for more bombing of Iraq.

Now the old Baathist and old Iraqi army are counterattacking. And there is nothing the USA can do: the counter-offensive is mixed with the (Sunni) population, so aerial strikes are not an effective, nor moral, option.

All there is to do is watch. If one wants to help, maybe one could put Bush and his accomplices on trial for war crimes. That would impress the Iraqis. That would build some real clout. But will the USA have the guts?

Let me explain slowly: the respect of law comes only from the fact all men, and children, know early on, that all are the same as far as the law is concerned. The lower moral types, those obsessed by the market, those who claim all the time that anything can be fixed through buying and selling, those who claim we are living in a globalized world, those tiny critters who rule, have to be treated the way they advocate.

They have to understand, with their tiny minds, that the market is nothing without the government, and the government nothing without an army driven by morality.

If it’s a global market, then, it’s a global morality. That means, a global law.

It’s high time for the USA to judge its war criminals. As France judged her own. How difficult is it to write a warrant of arrest for a guy who, by his wanton, cruel, and vicious acts, brought the death of hundreds of thousands of people?

And don’t forget Blair the Liar. Unbelievably that murderous Bliar, a plutocrat with more than eight residences, and an enormous fortune made as a payment for his satanic activities, is the “European Peace Envoy to the Middle East”. He is of course advising to commit more murderous bombing in Iraq.

Blair said he could not be judged for his war crimes (whereas Desmond Tutu and many other prestigious personalities advised that he should be). His argument was that the United Nations allowed the attack in Iraq. That’s actually false. What’s true is that a vote authorizing the attack did not happen.

The French Republic warned Bush that any attempt at the UN to allow for an attack would result in the exact opposite, namely an explicit interdiction of such an action, and that France had the votes in the Security Council.

So there was no authorization vote. The EU ought to be ashamed to use Blair in any function except as the main attraction in the International Criminal Court. Instead, Laurent Gbagbo, an Ivoirian president who allegedly used undemocratic means to stay in power too long, is going to be judged.

Gbagbo, in the worst possible case, was co-responsible of the deaths of few thousand people.  Blair, at least half a million (Bush would not have gone to war without Blair).

Gbagbo versus Blair: now, that’s true racism. Blair is just white, a plutocrat connected to the highest leading circles, and a pseudo converted Catholic (Blair cynically used that religious calling to say that he won’t have done it without the Lord’s agreement; so, on top of everything, the creep is straight out of the Crusades!)

The British and USA government officials deliberately lied to the United Nations. That sort of manipulation, by itself, to justify a war of aggression, is a war crime (the legal precedent being Von Ribbentrop at Nuremberg). Von Ribbentrop was hanged, as deserved. But then why are Blair and Bush still free to run around?

France executed around 40,000 Nazi collaborators in the 1944-48 period. Including an ex-Prime Minister (Pierre Laval)… And some authentic World War One heroes. Sometimes, recovering one’s honor, hope and human rights, let alone a Republican, Democratic Constitution, requires some work. And some courage. Can the USA step to the plate?

The Jihadist army is propelled by the prestige attached to fighting the bloody mass murdering tyrant Bachar Assad, scion of Assad. Thus the action of the USA and Britain, by  not striking the monster last summer, contributed to the Jihadist cause.

Ladies and gentlemen interventionists, you want to help Iraqis? Show them what democracy is about. It starts with justice. You want to help Iraq? Judge and condemn those Westerners who threw it into murderous chaos. They are easier to arrest than Ben Laden. And they killed much more people. And they are a much graver case. They are to civilization what a tumor is to a brain. Shall I repeat their names, or you still don’t get it?

Patrice Aymé