Prague Twin: Iran and Al Qaeda: Friends or Foes?

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Iran and Al Qaeda: Friends or Foes?

Perhaps some of you remember the run-up to the Iraq invasion when virtually every speech that Bush gave mentioned "911" and "Saddam Hussein" in the same breath. Now, he never said that Saddam Hussein was in anyway responsible for 911, but he skillfully, masterfully muddled the two together in speech after speech. After a while, polls showed that a full 60% of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks of 9/11.

I don't think there has been a recent poll on this question, but the last time I heard, it was still at about 50%.

The reason I'm bringing this up is because of this. Yep, that is right, "al Qaeda and Iran are among the greatest threats to America." Doesn't that sound like they are in a group together somehow? How about this quote from the article...

(It) can live in peace with its neighbor, enjoy strong economic and cultural and religious ties, or it can continue to arm and train and fund illegal militant groups which are terrorizing the Iraqi people and turning them against Iran.

Arm and train militant groups which are terrorizing the Iraqi people? Not al Qaeda, of course, but if you didn't know that, it would be easy to make the leap. Here is another quote to help you make the leap...

Bush said Iraq was "the convergence point for two of the greatest threats to America in this new century: Al Qaeda and Iran."

Converging? Not squaring off, but converging. The two greatest threats: al Qaeda and Iran. As if they are on the same I-hate-America team. Two wheels on the "axis of evil" teaming up to kill you and your family.

I have to hand it to his speech writers: this is brilliant. They have tied al Qaeda and Iran together in the minds of millions with this one. Of course, the years of repeating that "Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism" followed by "al Qaeda is the worlds most dangerous terrorist organization" is a requisite part of this well-planned scheme to dupe America into making this connection. The seeds have been sown so well, and now it is time to reap the harvest.

So here is the question: Does this new round of rhetoric indicate that we are getting very close to bombing Iran?

As a follow up: Will the media once again be culpable for helping to dupe the American public for failing to point out that there is no connection between the two?

Labels: al Qaeda, Iran

40 Comments:

Yes, these are brilliant speech writers who kept duping the public by muddling "Iraq 9/11 Saddam bin Laden Hussein" and now "Iran al Qaeda." And I think the percentage of Americans who think Iraq and 9/11 were connected has actually gone UP in the past year, as unbelievable as that sounds. As Ross Perot used to say, "now that's just sad."

I just can't picture us attacking Iran but maybe that's just wishful thinking. Our military is already stretched too thin, and other evil empires might soon push Iran off the front burner. With things heating up in South America, it's just a matter of time before Venezuela has Weapons of Mass Destruction and Caesar Chavez was connected to 9/11.

By Tom Harper, at 7:22 PM
Ahem...uh, that was supposed to be Hugo -- not Caesar -- Chavez. Doh!

By Tom Harper, at 2:42 AM
"Does this new round of rhetoric indicate that we are getting very close to bombing Iran?" I think it does but I've been expecting it for quite some time.I also think to dupe the American public is the goal or purpose of the main stream media.

God Bless America, God Save The Republic.

By David Schantz, at 3:11 AM
People also believe that global warming is; existant, potentialy catastrophic, and man made. Whose fault is that?

Truth be known, Iranian forces at the direction of its government are killing Americans....

Who here believes that Obama is a moderate??? Whos fault is that?

By Lysander Cadwalader, at 10:26 AM
PT, you know I have long considered the Iran situation as sabre rattling for domestic political consumption.
The required logistics are simply not available to the US on there own, and few others would join such an assault.

BTW, please pop over to Awarding times
for a pat on the back.

By Cartledge, at 11:58 PM
I have more faith in the intelligence of the American Public, Jaywalking notwithstanding. Mentioning one thing and then another is not connecting them and I believe you are a fool to believe it was on purpose, then or now. They are connected in their eagerness to do damage to the Infidels. Shia and Sunni live together throughout the Muslim dominated World. 'No connection' is just as wrong as 'close connection' (which no Republican in a position of responsibility has said--unlike you). Iran and al Qaeda are our biggest enemies just now, although China is getting ready at break-neck speed. I hope we don't attack Iran just yet, but I pray we're doing something short of that.

By Roger Fraley, at 1:33 AM
Roger, faith is all very well, but it never did transcend observation and evidence. I subscribe to the doctrine of faith, but to my mind that carries an equal, personal responsibility, as opposed to a simple acceptance.
You use the emotional language of justification rather than the language of analysis. You say “Iran and al Qaeda are our biggest enemies just now” without supplying the slightest evidence of that massive generalization.
I believe I have a right to speak to your comments, as Australia is compliant in this whole affair, along with the USA. Then you make a wild generalisation on China, ignoring the rush by US corporates to amass an enormous debt for their own gain.
Please dig a little deeper and find reason to support this kind of allegation, Frankly I have and cannot find the evidence which might even come close to supporting your arguments.

By Cartledge, at 8:59 AM
I would support my claims about al Qaeda and Iran with quotes from OBL and Ahmadinijad. I believe them when they say they want to destroy us. I think al Qaeda has amply demonstrated its desire to do so. Re Iran: they are supplying weapons, training and fighters (Quds forces) in Iraq. You wouldn't call that friendly, would you? Re China: They are ramping up their armed forces and seem, to my understanding, to be developing the specific weapons to take us on. I could be paranoid about that last, but just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. I couldn't follow the debt thing. My fault I'm sure.

By Roger Fraley, at 8:05 PM
Roger, I don’t doubt your integrity in holding these beliefs. What does concern me is that you are informed by the US media. There are many issues simply not reported or discussed in US media, certainly not to the extent they are dissected in other countries.
The difficulty with wider discussion is that issues are no longer simple black and white; many factors, beyond apparent threats, enter the picture. Economics is one such factor, that ‘debt thing’ being part of it. However we, on the outside, see more in relation to the apparent threats being used as a domestic political tool than you are likely to hear in the US.
I would suggest that you avail yourself of some of the major overseas news sources available on the web, including the conservative media such as Murdoch’s The Australian or Times in London or the Canadian ‘National Post'. Even these essentially right wing organs report news and canvass issues which might surprise you.
You will perhaps find out why other national populations are a good deal more cynical of the simple picture than is the case in the US.

By Cartledge, at 3:41 AM
Wow,

Great comments. I've been completely absent, and I do apologize for that.

Roger, It seems I struck a nerve, which usually means I have brushed a truth to harsh for you to admit. Unfortunately I do not share you optimistic assessment of American's ability to discern these subtleties, which I think the case of Saddam and 911 clearly illustrates. I doubt even a majority know the difference between Sunni and Shia, and at the risk of repeating what I already wrote: mentioning Iran and al-Qaeda in the same sentence will clearly lead many to make the connection, where, as I repeat, there is none. Keep in mind, Roger, if a member of the Quds force showed up at an al-Qaeda meeting, he'd get beheaded.

Furthermore, I'll refrain from calling you a fool, but you are extremely naive to think that these speeches are given without careful calculation as to what effect they will have.

And this speech is meant to have the effect of connecting these two enemies, when there is no connection. Period.

Finally, if you are paranoid about China, you shouldn't be so nonplussed about the twin deficits. The U.S.A. is quickly becoming China's bitch, and it has nothing to do with China's military.

Wake up Roger.

By Praguetwin, at 10:48 PM
LOL Lysander, I can’t recall seeing such an abrupt and pregnant comment from you before. But pregnant it is and deserves some response.
The sad fact (for many other counties as well) is that the US is in debt to China for a conservative $3 trillion. How did that happen? For a start The Bush and Clinton administrations followed a neo-liberal pseudo economic line and encourage the movement of production offshore to cheaper labour markets. All our clever countries did that.
The result for most of us meant greater imports of manufactured and agricultural products. Some like Australia could offset that with resource exports to China, but the US did not have that option and have a far higher demand than most.
Little, in an economic sense, Australia has taken China on in a few major battles since our new progressive government, one has been a long running fight over long term iron ore contract prices. Recently China threatened to buy out our mining corporations to control the price, they were going to use their surplus US dollars to do the buyout.
Our government quietly told them to go ahead, but they would still pay the royalty prices set by Australia, regardless of owning the mines. We could do that because they also need our coal and natural gas to produce the energy to convert the ore into product – which Americans will buy.
I hate to tell you this, but the US is currently the bottom guy in the economic food chain. Another aspect of the fall was this being blinded by threat and aggression. While the US was pouring money into a defense build up, partly to sustain Iraq and partly to prepare for China’s attack, China was pouring its money into economic growth.
Many of us outside the US watched in both amusement and horror. Now, as we all suffer every belch in the US economy it is mainly horror.

By Cartledge, at 8:31 AM
Cart;

I bring it up in kurt terms in an effort to drive the reader to conclude that the relationship is symbiotic...We buy from them as a result of President Clinton's “executive” order giving them most favored trade status. This allowed organizations like Wall Mart, where the then First Lady Hillary Clinton sat on the board of directors, to take advantage of this new relationship. This is something that the bellyacher’s who scream about the exportation of American jobs seldom like to talk about because they all love the Clintons who are the root of the cause.

Now, the point is this: As we as Americans are striped of some of our manufacturing base, they are stripped of their Communist identity. As a dear friend Wess said. "Every time you buy a good from China, it makes them a little bit more capitalist".

By Lysander Cadwalader, at 5:04 PM
Lysander, given there hasn’t been a progressive government since the Regan/Thatcher years I find it odd that the Clinton administration could be excused from the current problems.
However I would split hairs on the China – communist comment. I doubt they ever tried communism, having never progressed past the straight totalitarian phase. But you are right; a move to market economics has created greater freedoms in some parts of that enormous country.
The problem with China is trying to observe it as one homogenous unit, and our regulatory bodies would no doubt find a great deal of criminal activity featuring in the current economic reform phase. Much like Russia I guess.
But the fact is parts of China are well on the way to full fledged capitalism. I would go so far as to predict a break up of China in the near to mid future. The productive and wealthy south east of the country is likely to object to carrying the rest. I see Taiwan becoming part of South China while the rest of the country are left to sort their own issues.

By Cartledge, at 11:07 PM
Cart;

I'm confused; did you find my comments on the Clintons to be excusatory or are you suggesting that they be excused? If the former is your belief, please understand that it is the Clintons that I hold most responsible for the American capitalist dealings with China.

Now if it should come to pass that China embrace capitalist free markets (as we have both somewhat alluded to) then I guess I will have to acknowledge Clinton as the “architect” of it all….

So many rabbit holes…

By Lysander Cadwalader, at 3:16 PM
Lysander, let me be more blunt, Clinton is clearly implicated in the creation of the current mess.
I excuse nothing, but I don't share your need to pin horns on him alone.
Bill Clinton was part of a neo-liberal economic continuum. I am confused that anyone could have sen him as progressive, at least economically.
It seems more a case of expectation and labels than reality. I expect you invest a clever politician with more depth than he ever had.
I would be more inclined to place the roots of China's change with the Reagan administration. Note the term administration, it takes a team.

By Cartledge, at 10:34 PM
Indeed,

While the Clinton administration will be credited with tagging China with the MFN title, the were already de facto MFN under the Reagan admin.

All part of a process for which no one, or everyone is to blame.

By Praguetwin, at 1:02 AM
Well put PT, good to have someone interpret for me. I have tried to explain the chronology on: The Clinton Legacy?

By Cartledge, at 1:49 AM
PT Cart;

Perhaps you could provide some information on how it is that we had "de facto MFN" under Reagan?

By Lysander Cadwalader, at 3:17 PM
Lysander
I never had the impression that you were naïve, and I do get the impression that our preferred world looks pretty much the same – I don’t understand why we get bogged down in polemic.
The historical fact is that Reagan, Thatcher et al instituted a period of supply-side economics. They only needed to get the snowball rolling for the corporates, IMF, World Bank and the rest to capitalize – no pun intended.
You don’t get a spring flood if you don’t get the winter snow pack. It was Reagan policy which effectively created the metaphorical snow pack.

By Cartledge, at 10:50 PM
Well since the Clinton administration MFN status was largely a symbolic agreement, and the barriers had largely been lifted by then, I think my point is clear.

While you and your like enjoy blaming Clinton for the massive trade deficit with China, while you praise GWB as you savior you might want to consider this quote...

On U.S. priority agriculture products, tariffs will be reduced from an overall average of 31.5% to 14.5% by January 2004, at the latest.

So, if you want to lay blame on a party for creating the conditions that we are currently suffering from (although the real effects won't become clear for a decade or so, just like the housing crisis, you won't see the sky falling until is crashing on your head) you should realize that every administration, starting with Reagan is at least partially responsible.

I'm not trying to defend Clinton. Certainly his policies didn't help. But tagging him with the blame because of a largely symbolic act is pure folly.

By Praguetwin, at 12:51 AM
Have you heard Sally Kern's speech? (Youtube it if you haven't) Homosexuals are a far greater threat. Sigh (sarcasm there).

I have a feeling that terrorist organizations have members in more countries and are probably funded and supported by many middle eastern countries... remember, they all hate Israel together... it's plausible that they are all involved to some degree... is it up to us to police the world though? Don't think so... but stomping on developing nations IS pretty entertaining. Too bad the American public is more interested in throwing out bad governments overseas than here at home.

Collin
www.rejectsociety.com

By Collin Williams, at 7:44 PM
Cart PT

If you are suggesting that just because Reagan was a supply side type, that this alone gave us "de facto MFN", you might as well simply lay the problem at the foot of Alexander Hamilton.

Now, I ask again; please enumerate the policies of Reagan that were enacted which gave us "de facto MFN" for China

By Lysander Cadwalader, at 3:08 PM
Lysander when you can blandly state; “just because Reagan was a supply side type” it suggests to me the discussion has reached beyond the point of diminishing returns. You obviously have no concept of just how profound and radical that economic shift was.
Seems like you are going to just dig your heels in and ignore any aspect of history which does not support your preferred position. That is not a helpful way to approach an understanding of public affairs.

By Cartledge, at 10:44 PM
Cart;

Are you suggesting that supply side economics is a radical "new thing"?

By Lysander Cadwalader, at 12:12 AM
Come on Lysander, that sort of argument twisting is barely worth dignifying with a response.
What i am suggesting is that you are obviously struggling hold your position.

By Cartledge, at 12:41 AM
Cart;

My position is simple and solid. Just because one is "supply side" minded domestically, does not mean that his international stance is the same. Now unless you can tie Reagan's actual actions to the current trade defficit w/China, I think it is your argument that has fallen terribly appart.

By Lysander Cadwalader, at 1:05 AM
Ok, I can work with that. Of course economics is cyclic. My current studies of the 19th century English Industrial Revolution a rife with examples of an early cycle of supply-side economics. That dalliance created its own revolution from which sprang socialism, communism and on the bright side universal suffrage, and Keynesian economics.
The latter, coloured by JK Galbraith, was dominant in the US and elsewhere in the world when Reagan/Thatcher came to power. They were the political leaders who acquiesced to a powerful corporate structure, the latest manifestation of which is Halliburton, that saw huge profits to be made from forcing development programs on foreign countries, and no doubt domestically as well.
I have stated before, this trade deficit is the result of action started in the Reagan years. It is all very well to claim a penchant for domestic supply side without wanting the international equivalent. But the isolationism you were suckered into adopting was never a reality.
Reagan was an honest politician, once bought he stayed bought. Those powerful corporates, beyond the ones which existed purely as wealth generators, were urged under Regan’s supply side doctrine to seek out low cost wage sources to increase profitability of production. Those sources, apart from illegal immigrants, were not domestic.
China, as the process developed, were only too happy to take part in the economic expansion afforded by controlling a slave population. That original growth began while so called communist China was at the height of its totalitarian ways.
But it had the consequence of creating wealthy individuals, especial given that corruption transcends isms. Reagan did not drive those economic engines; he merely had to ensure the tracks were switched.
My argument here, and elsewhere, has been triggered by conservative apologists who seem to thing progressives should admire Bill Clinton. It seems to me progressives are far more willing to look beyond the labels to the actual outcomes.
We have just suffered 30 something years of harsh corporate focused economics; though it is hardly legitimate economics if it fails to recognise wider social values. Through those years, regardless of claimed left/right labels governments have run with the pack.
I doubt we will see a wild swing back to the left now, but we are starting to see a creeping shift towards the Keynesian model. In fact, even talking to people who would not know an economic from their butt hole the overwhelming desire is for simple balance.
Our world is changing and perhaps maturing; there is no real desire for radical change, just for the recognition of the needs of all people rather than just an elite. I think your “Just because” premise is naïve and ignores realities.

By Cartledge, at 1:47 AM
Cart;

You are not only still charged with providing information on Reagan’s trade policies that allowed for the current trade situation with China, but are also now charged with evidencing how Halliburton has “forced development programs on foreign countries” due to said trade policies.

Everyone loves to bash Reagan, but seldom it is that they can actually point to some kind of legislation or policy that substantiates the charge….

Lest we forget: it is because of Bill Clinton that the Chinese can place a warhead anyplace on earth.

By Lysander Cadwalader, at 3:28 PM
Lysander, I enjoy a good discussion, particularly sharing alternative views. What I don’t enjoy is constantly having the basics of the discussion changed and having carefully chosen words redefined to suit your purpose, whatever that might be.
I suggest you reread what I have written with a view to understanding the context of terms like ‘continuum’ and ‘latest manifestation’. It is your position to suggest the allocation of direct blame. I have consistently talked about an economic paradigm introduced by Reagan and his international contemporaries, a paradigm which has put us where we are today.
You might argue, and that is your right, that all is good with the world. But it is not yur right to reassign the words and meanings of others.

By Cartledge, at 10:36 PM
Cart

Your have laid some strong charges against the administrations prior to the Clinton administrations regarding trade policys w/China. I have asked you to site proof of your claim, and thus far you have only given me anecdotal evidence at best. Simply saying that "Reagan was pro business" indicates nothing in regard to his trade policies. If it were that simple you could lay the blame on Calvin Coolidge who said: "The business of America is business."

So again Cart, I ask for somthing substantive so that we may move on in this conversation...

(I would love to talk about economic modles and multi nationals with you, as a union member who is fiscally conservative, I have a different take than some others)

By Lysander Cadwalader, at 3:32 PM
Lysander, we really do need to co-ordinate the discussion a little here. Obviously you have some difficulty dealing with historical abstracts, and so personified economic regime into Reagan.
If you read back you will find I speak of Reagan and others as the beginning of the economic stream, the ones who launched a system from which the current dynamic has unfolded.
I find personification disconcerting, and maybe more suited to Hollywood trash mags than to serious economic/political discourse.
I would hold that a president (or indeed Prime Minister) is part of an immediate team as well as part of an historically stream in one way or another.
So I will not easily be drawn in to assassinating individual leaders as a debating tactic.

I enjoy discussion of issues, but appreciate a basic agreement on terms and issues being discussed.

By Cartledge, at 12:50 AM
Cart;

OK,,, I play your game... Expound upon this statment

"Reagan and others as the beginning of the economic stream, the ones who launched a system from which the current dynamic has unfolded"

By providing some of the actual legislation or actions taken by Reagan wherein his aim is foreign trade and not just the simple act of simple domestic business.

By Lysander Cadwalader, at 5:39 AM
Lysander, please don not resort to cheap shots here. It is not my game, as you put it, it is my desire for you to debate the words I use rather than twisting statements to your own preferred interpretation.
Having said that I would also suggest you are better placed than I to find the information you request, but I expect you mean that as a challenge to me. Well my friend, I would begin with the "Trade, Employment, and Productivity Act of 1987' (the Act).
Included Export Controls - Product Liability Reform - Antitrust Reform
The intent of this proposal was simple: to assure American competitive preeminence into the 21st century. “These initiatives all have a common element: they will improve our Nation's productivity and competitiveness.” Reagan
It was the Reagan administration that launched the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations in 1986 that lowered global tariffs and created the World Trade Organization. It was his administration that won approval of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement in 1988. That agreement soon expanded to include Mexico in what became the North American Free Trade Agreement, realizing a vision that Reagan first articulated in the 1980 campaign. It was Reagan who vetoed protectionist textile quota bills in 1985 and 1988.
Mid July 1984 Reagan signed a tax bill with a little noticed amendment delivering a $12 billion windfall to multinationals. This included outfits like the Bechtel Group and represented forgiveness of deferred taxes on foreign profits from 1971 until the end of ‘84.
The Nixon Administration enacted a law permitting multinationals to set up Domestic International Sales Corporations (DISCs) so that the U.S. multinationals could compete more readily with foreign firms. The Reagan Administration expanded the basics through various tax breaks, as noted.
A number of foreign nations, especially in Western Europe, began complaining that the DISCs violated the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the treaty that regulated the non-Communist world's trade.
There are now 9,000 active DISCs in the U.S. Of the American export trade total of $233.7 billion in 1981, two thirds was handled by DISCs.
Now being fair here, and I never asserted Reagan was the sole cause, only that Regan was a part of a continuum, I quote from a
November 2006 the Carnegie Endowment hosted a discussion on the future of globalization entitled, “Is Globalization Headed for the Rocks.” The panel included Kevin Hassett,
Harley Balzer of Georgetown University questioned how Hassett could praise Reagan for the benefits of globalization when China’s growth began before he took office and India’s did not commence until after he left.
Indeed, Reagan was essentially an isolationist, at least so far as trade is concerned. But I expect Hassett suffers that same need to distort with personification. I further suspect Reagan was fed on suitably selected bullshit as radical changes were being made, another reason I avoid personification. He was lured, probably for generally decent reasons, to support changes with dubious real purposes.
He believed he was going to help the American worker, but what was the result?
His first act as president was to issue an executive order ending certain price controls. His economic policies, similar to supply-side economics and dubbed "Reaganomics," achieved a 25% cut in the federal personal income tax, moderate deregulation and tax reform, which he believed would remove barriers to efficient economic activity.
The national debt quadrupled at the end of Reagan's terms.

By Cartledge, at 7:27 AM
Cart;

I assure you cheap shots are not my intention. I am always seeking clarity in a persons position.

So were clear, inspite of the policies you enumerated, you agree that "Reagan was essentially an isolationist, at least so far as trade is concerned"?

By Lysander Cadwalader, at 4:03 PM
"Reagan was essentially an isolationist, at least so far as trade is concerned"?
If that is your argument I have no real issue. Most US presidents, administrations and congresses are essentially isolationist.
Perhaps I could suggest they are also either naive or complicit (for various reasons) with a competing and outward looking corporate sector.
Whatever the motives, the effective US policy has been distinct from any isolationist motive, and has returned to bight the US economy on the bum.
It is a shame the US corporates don't subscribe to patriotism in the same way it is sold to the rest of the country.

By Cartledge, at 6:10 AM
this isn't a comment on anything I have read here. I came to this site through a Google search on the "shaking keys" story from Prague, November 1989. I'm looking for photos of that very very iconic event, and I can't seem to find them. Wierd, n'est pas? Any suggestions? Please email to egotriste@hotmail.co.uk ta.

By Anonymous, at 11:49 AM
Ours is an envionment where evil is perceived to be rewarded while good is punished. As with everything the Gods have a reason for creating this perception::::
People who fall on the good side of the good/evil scale have more favor, and when they do something wrong the Gods punish them BECAUSE THEY WANT THEM TO LEARN. The Gods want them to receive this feedback in hope they make corrections and begin to behave appropriately. The Gods DON'T like evil and refuse to grant this feedback.
EVERYBODY pays for what they do wrong, only evil people must wait until their next life before they will experience the wrath of the Gods, manifested in their reincarnation as a lower form of life into environments with increased/enhanced temptations.
Sadly, this allows the Gods to position this perception of evil rewarded as temptation, one which they use as an EXTREMELY effective corruptor.

Both Africa and the Medittereanean are regions which have sexual issues. This is a sign of morbid disfavor once you understand that females are the God's favored gender. Muhammad's (Mohammed's) polygamy halfway through his life as a prophet was preditory. Now a huge percentage of Muslims believes in male superiority and that the abuse of women is God's will. Female genital mutilation is still practiced in Africa. Black misogyny is the most eggregious example in the recent past.
The patriarchal cancer spread throughout Europe because of Christianity, of which the majority of policy makers were Italian men.

Militancy in Africa is consistant with the Iraqi example, as was slavery and the KKK here in America:::Fear enforces proper behavior. Without it we see what happens as a result of gross/morbid disfavor:::::AIDS, crack babies, dead young men in gangland retaliation killings.
The same principle was true in Europe and throughout the world for centuries:::People whom lived under iron fists were conditioned to think the right way. As a result they experienced higher numbers of children accend into heaven because they were taught to think and behave appropriately. Our preditory envionment of "freedom" was the primary purpose the Gods had when implimenting this strategy that is the United States, one which they used to spred the cancer of democracy and westernization throughout the world. And the Gods use this tool that is America to prey on the disfavored both at home and abroad.

Even the Old Testiment is not to be taken literally, but the Gods do offer clues throughout to help the disfavored:::The apple is a tool of temptation used to corrupt Adam and Eve and cast them out of the Garden of Eden.
There is another lesson to be learned from this passage, and it is quite similar to the vailing issue and the discourse over women's attire which ultimately died in the 70s:::Women are responsible for and control the fate of mankind.
The masculinization of women experienced in the last few decades should cause despondancy and desperation:::It illustrates the deterioration of mankind's collective favor and is a clue the Gods are preparing for some event.

Think about what I say. Consider what I teach. Society is going to become disturbingly ugly as we approach the Apocalypse due to spiralling, runaway disfavor.
I do not know when this will occurr, but it is the God's way to grant some time before they end on Planet Earth.
Make the decision to always be good and never look back. Until you do this technology will employ tactics to test your resolve:::Ridicule, beligerance, doubt and refusal to abandon what people perceive to be their "investment".
Pray daily. Think appropriately. Too many are confident, unaware of the God's awesome powers or their status as antients. Others may fall prey to their positioning.
Be humbled, God-fearing and beware of the God's temptations, for everyone is tested to evaluate their worthiness.

Search for the remainder of this document. Blogster/spot only allows 4000 charecters.

By Anonymous, at 9:26 AM
ahmadinejad does not care about any sanctions or deadlines, so there is no any other way to influence on Iran but war, though i think USA will no start open war with Iran and will try to bomb it with Israeli bombs-lets face the truth Iran is a true threat first of all for Israel...

By jubilee@ Israeli Uncensored News, at 9:14 PM
nice post and lots of infromation about the provided treatment thanks

By management information system, at 10:05 AM
I wanted to thank you for this excellent read!! I definitely loved every little bit of it.
m to m

By m2mdaily, at 1:29 PM

Prague Twin

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Iran and Al Qaeda: Friends or Foes?

40 Comments:

About

About Me

Previous

Blog Roll

TTLB

Blog Things