Bent Spears, Empty Quivers and Ahmadinejad.

by BlogRolling - Sept 27, 2007

Before I get into the body of today’s article I want everyone to -

READ THIS LINK FIRST. Please…http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=7257

As I have often repeated here, the attack of 9/11 was engineered by American Neo-cons, Israeli Mossad agents and certain members of British Intelligence. The overwhelming connections between these forces and the roads that lead back to them via motive, means and opportunity; not to mention the cui bono accruing in the following years have been exhaustively detailed in many locations and can be had from Google with just a little finger work and the mind’s attention. That a great many people are too lazy, frightened or stupid to do the work has nothing to do with the reality of the matter.

If you need a good starting point for your inquiries, provided you can find your balls and pull your head out of the sand, I would recommend traveling to http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ and http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/ as well as visiting the truthseeker link from which this article is reprinted.

Let us revisit Ahmadinejad’s recent appearance at Columbia University and the United Nations.

Let us consider his introduction by the catamite Bollinger and the hostility that attended his presence wherever he went. Let us consider the accusations leveled against him and what he said in reply.

There are three major charges leveled against the president of Iran. The first is that he is alleged to have called for the destruction of Israel. The second is that he is a holocaust denier and the third is that he is a representative of a country that is seeking to build a nuclear weapon.
As to the first charge; Ahmadinejad NEVER called for the destruction of Israel. The actual quote is "The Imam [Khomeini] said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." You should note that he is actually quoting Khomeini and not making the comment himself and that further, the Iman didn’t make the quote that the media reported either. Basically they are calling for “regime change” just as America’s illustrious, bobble-headed leader has been doing since he first became a turtle on a fence post.

As to the second charge; Ahmanedijad NEVER said the holocaust didn’t happen. His concern was that scholars should have the right to investigate what appears to be number fudging among those who have been using the holocaust to blackmail the nations of the world and to justify the genocide of Palestine. He also was concerned that people were being thrown into prison for questioning features about the holocaust that appear to not match up with the facts.

Why should people be imprisoned for questioning this particular holocaust when they aren’t imprisoned for questioning any of the others? If people aren’t put in prison for saying that aliens are in control of their lunchbox, or for saying that Bush was involved in the Matamoros killings, then why are they put into prison for this? My point is that people should have the right to be wrong and to be proven wrong, no matter how deluded they may or may not be.

It is worthwhile to point out here that over the years the actual death count at Auschwitz has been consistently lowered and that the official Red Cross figures do not match up with the figures provided by the usual sources.

Personally, I do not concern myself with the numbers and circumstances of this ‘particular’ holocaust but am more concerned with the fact that all of the other holocausts don’t seem to have mattered. I’ll wager the holocaust in The Congo is fast approaching the commonly given numbers of this holocaust.

Not only did America cause the Cambodian holocaust but they went on to petition for Pol Pot to be admitted to the U.N. as the legitimate representative of the Cambodian people. That’s nice… That’s sweet… America and many other nations stood by while the holocaust in Rwanda took place. The ADL recently had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the public eye to admit that the holocaust in Armenia actually happened; thanks to the courtesy and courage of the people of Watertown. We should note that of all organizations in the world, the ADL should have been the most sympathetic to the Armenian holocaust but let’s not let irony get in the way of vested interest.

If the Zionist interests do not exert an enormous influence over world affairs FAR BEYOND what their numbers ought to provide then why are people being imprisoned for asking questions about a historical event? Shouldn’t they just be debated or their argument destroyed by the facts? If the facts are conclusive then how can anyone denying something against provable fact be any kind of a threat? Hello?

As to the third charge; it is a fact according to the IAEA that Iran is not making a nuclear device. Could they conceivably one day get involved in such a thing? Are they not now living under nuclear threat from Israel who does not belong to the IAEA and who refuses any investigation of Dimona and who has imprisoned for many years the man who revealed their nuclear program? Hello? …but they are not making a nuclear weapon; given what they are facing now, without having given any provocation, I’m impressed at their restraint.

Finally, as to a possible fourth charge that they are arming Iraq insurgents. Try as the neo-cons might, they have been unable to prove this and I would add that the Iranians have every right to do so in any case. America launched a pre-emptive war against Iran’s neighbor based on fabricated intel. They have so far killed one million Iraqis (another holocaust) and displaced four million more. Now they are attempting the same against Iran. Previously they invaded Iran’s other neighbor and even a moron ought to be able to see that the point of this sandwich was to get to the meat within; that being Iran, as they mount their grand conclusion of decimating Iran and Syria, all at the behest of Israel using the currency of American soldiers and at the cost of America’s reputation for their bloody ends.

As Sgt. Joe Friday used to say, “Just the facts mam.”

Now if someone, anyone, can dispute- specifically- anything I have said here, I would welcome it. I would be improved by knowing I had been wrong because… once having seen it to be true and then adjusting my position- I would become right. Does this logic confuse anyone?

Should anyone have a reaction to something I have pointed out here, it would please me greatly if you would point out, with attendant factual support, just where I have been misleading. Responses from visceral locations and brain farts from the reactive mind aren’t what we’re looking for, “just the facts, mam… just the facts.”