Why the Mideast Exploded, Really

Exclusive: The new conventional wisdom, in the wake of angry protests roiling the Middle East, is that Muslims are either way too sensitive or irrational. How else to explain the fury over an offensive anti-Islam video? But the video was just the spark that ignited a long-smoldering fire, says ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

By Ray McGovern

“Why Is the Arab world so easily offended?” asks the headline atop an article by Fouad Ajami, which the Washington Post published online last Friday to give perspective to the recent anti-American violence in Muslim capitals.

While the Post described Ajami simply as a “senior fellow” at Stanford’s conservative Hoover Institution, Wikipedia gives a more instructive perspective on his checkered career and dubious credibility.

Author and scholar Fouad Ajami. (Photo credit: Charlie Rose Show)

An outspoken supporter of the war on Iraq, Ajami was still calling it a “noble effort” well after it went south. He is a friend and colleague of one of the war’s intellectual authors, neocon Paul Wolfowitz, and also advised Condoleezza Rice. It was apparently Wolfowitz or Rice who fed Ajami’s analyses to then-Vice President Dick Cheney, who cited Ajami’s views repeatedly in speeches.

The most telling example of this came in Cheney’s VFW address on August 26, 2002, in which the Vice President laid down the terms of reference for the planned attack on Iraq. Attempting to assuage concerns about the upcoming invasion, Cheney cited Ajami’s analysis: “As for the reaction of the Arab ‘street,’ the Middle East expert Professor Fouad Ajami predicts that after liberation, the streets in Basra and Baghdad are ‘sure to erupt in joy in the same way the throngs in Kabul greeted the Americans.'”

In his writings, Ajami did warn, in a condescending way, that one could expect some “road rage … of a thwarted Arab world the congenital condition of a culture yet to take full responsibility for its self-inflicted wounds.” He then added:

“There is no need to pay excessive deference to the political pieties and givens of the region. Indeed, this is one of those settings where a reforming foreign power’s simpler guidelines offer a better way than the region’s age-old prohibitions and defects.”

No One Better?

Ignoring the albatross of tarnished credentials hanging around Ajami’s neck, the Post apparently saw him as just the right academician to put perspective on the violence of last week in Middle East capitals. As for his record of credibility: Well, who takes the trouble to go to Wikipedia for information on pundits?

Nor were the Post’s editors going to take any chances that its newspaper readers might miss the benefit of Ajami’s wisdom. So the Post gave pride of place to the same article in Sunday’s Outlook section, as well. What the Post and other mainstream media want us to believe comes through clearly in the title given to the article’s jump portion, which dominates page 5: “Why a YouTube trailer ignited Muslim rage.”

Setting off the article were large, scary photos: on page one, a photo of men brandishing steel pipes to hack into the windows of the U.S. embassy in Yemen; the page-5 photo showed a masked protester, as he “ran from a burning vehicle near the U.S. embassy in Cairo.”

So to recapitulate the Post’s favored editorial narrative of the Mideast turmoil is that hypersensitive, anti-American Muslims are doing irrational stuff like killing U.S. diplomats and torching our installations. This violence was the result of Arabs all too ready to take offense at a video trailer disrespectful of the Prophet.

Nonetheless, it seems to be true that the trailer did have some immediate impact and will have more. According to an eyewitness, the 30 local guards who were supposed to protect the U.S. consulate in Benghazi simply ran away as the violent crowd approached on Tuesday night.

Wissam Buhmeid, the commander of the Tripoli government-sanctioned Libya’s Shield Brigade, effectively a police force for Benghazi, maintained that it was anger over the video trailer which made the guards abandon their post.

“There were definitely people from the security forces who let the attack happen because they were themselves offended by the film; they would absolutely put their loyalty to the Prophet over the consulate. The deaths are all nothing compared to insulting the Prophet.”

Predictably, Islamophobes and Muslim haters with influence over Western media coverage are citing the violence as the kind of “irrational” over-reaction that “exposes” Islam’s intolerance and incompatibility with democratic values and demonstrates that Islam is on a collision course with the West.

It is no surprise that Ajami gives no attention to the many additional factual reasons explaining popular outrage against the U.S. and its representatives reasons that go far deeper than a video trailer, offensive though it was. Ajami steers clear of the dismal effects of various U.S. policies over the years on people across the Muslim world in countries like Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Tunisia, Libya, Afghanistan. (The list stretches as far as distant Indonesia, the most populous Muslim state.)

Last week’s violence not only reflects the deep anger at and distrust of the U.S. across the Islamic world, but also provides insight into the challenges posed by the power now enjoyed by the forces of extremism long held in check by the dictators toppled by last year’s wave of revolutions.

Cui Bono?

Who are the main beneficiaries of misleading narratives like that of Ajami. He himself concedes, “It is never hard to assemble a crowd of young protesters in the teeming cities of the Muslim world. American embassies and consulates are magnets for the disgruntled.”

So, does that mean the notorious video trailer is best regarded as a catalyst for the angry protests rather than the underlying cause? In other words, if the video served as the spark, who or what laid the kindling? Who profits from the narrative that neocons are trying so hard to embed in American minds?

Broad hints can be seen in the Washington Post’s coverage over recent days including a long piece by its Editorial Board, “Washington’s role amid the Mideast struggle for power,” published the same day Ajami’s article appeared online.

What the two have in common is that the word “Israel” appears in neither piece. One wonders how and why the Post‘s editors could craft a long editorial on the “Mideast struggle for power” — and give editorial prominence to Ajami’s article — without mentioning Israel.

Presumably because the Post’s readers aren’t supposed to associate the fury on the Arab “street” with anger felt by the vast majority Arabs over what they see as U.S. favoritism toward Israel and neglect for the plight of the Palestinians. The Israeli elephant, with the antipathy and resentment its policies engender, simply cannot be allowed into the discussion.

In the circumstances of last week, Israel may be less a centerpiece than the ugly Islamophobia that has found a home in America. But these factors tend to build on and reinforce each other. And the indignities suffered at the hand of Israel certainly has resonance is the larger context of Muslims who feel their religion and culture are under attack in a variety of ways.

“Why Do They Hate Us?”

On Saturday, during a live interview on Al-Jazeera, I tried to inject some balance into the discussion. I noted that one key reason for the antipathy toward the U.S. among Muslims is the close identification of the U.S. with Israel and the widespread realization that support from Washington enables Israel’s policies of oppression and warmongering against the Palestinians and its regional neighbors.

[As an example of that Israeli brutality and American complicity, an op-ed in Monday’s New York Times detailed how U.S. diplomats in 1982 acquiesced to Israeli actions in Lebanon that led to the massacre of defenseless Palestinian civilians at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.]

As to “why they hate us,” I had time to recall three very telling things I had mentioned in an earlier article on this sensitive topic.

1 — From the 9/11 Commission Report of July 2004, page 147, regarding the motivation of alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: “By his own account, KSM’s animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experience there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.”

2 — The mainstream-media-neglected report from the Pentagon-appointed Defense Science Board, a report that took direct issue with the notion that they hate us for our freedom. Amazingly, in their Sept. 23, 2004, report to Rumsfeld, the DSB directly contradicted what Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush had been saying about “why they hate us.” Here’s part of what the DSB said:

“Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf States. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.”

The New York Times ignored the Defense Science Board’s startling explanation (as it has other references to the elephant plopped on the sofa). On Nov. 24, 2004, the erstwhile “newspaper of record” did publish a story on the board’s report, but performed some highly interesting surgery.

Thom Shanker of the Times quoted the paragraph beginning with “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom'” (see above), but he or his editors deliberately cut out the following sentence about what Muslims do object to, i.e., U.S. “one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights” and support for tyrannical regimes.

The Times then included the sentence immediately after the omitted one. In other words, it was not simply a matter of shortening the paragraph. Rather, the offending middle sentence was surgically removed.

Equally important — and equally missing — there is never any sensible examination of the motives that might be driving what Cheney called this “same assortment of killers and would-be mass murderers [who] are still there.” We are left with Ajami’s image of hypersensitive or irrational Muslims unwilling to confront their own cultural failings.

3 On May 21, 2009, just four months after he left office, Dick Cheney gave a speech at the neocon America Enterprise Institute and blurted out some uncharacteristic honesty. He explained why terrorists hate “all the things that make us a force for good in the world, for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences.”

However, no longer enjoying the services of a functionary to vet his rhetoric, Cheney slipped up (and so did the reporters covering the event).  Expanding on the complaints of the terrorists, Cheney said:

“They have never lacked for grievances against the United States. Our belief in freedom of speech and religion our belief in equal rights for women our support for Israel (emphasis added), these are the true sources of resentment.”

“Our support for Israel” a true source of resentment. Cheney got that part right.

One Brief Shining Moment

My mind wandered back to June 2004, when former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer published his insightful book, Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. The book won him interviews with the likes of NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, and to his credit Scheuer rose to the occasion with candor rarely heard in mainstream media before or since.

On June 23, 2004, he told Mitchell:

“It’s very hard in this country to debate policy regarding Israel … bin Laden’s ‘genius’  lies in his ability to exploit those U.S. policies most offensive to Muslims our support for Israel, our presence on the Arabian peninsula, in Afghanistan and Iraq, our support for governments that Muslims believe oppress Muslims.”

Scheuer went on to say that bin Laden regarded the war on Iraq as proof of America’s hostility toward Muslims, and of the reality that America “is willing to do almost anything to defend Israel. The war is certainly viewed as an action meant to assist the Israeli state. It is … a godsend for those Muslims who believe as bin Laden does.”

In an interview with ABC’s “This Week,” he added that failure to change American policies to better match realities in the Middle East could mean decades of war. Only if the American people learn the truth could more effective strategies be fashioned and implemented, he added.

By and large, the truth-telling did not happen, so there has been but negligible pressure from the American people. The situation today differs little from then.

Indeed, in the same time frame of Scheuer’s book, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld grappled publicly with a troubling “unknown” that followed along the same lines, i.e., “whether the extremists … are turning out newly trained terrorists faster than the United States can capture or kill them. It is quite clear to me that we do not have a coherent approach to this.”

Since then, eight years have come and gone with still no coherent approach and with continued media camouflaging of the bedrock reasons as to “why they hate us.”

Among the chief beneficiaries of this woodenheaded approach? One can look at the military-industrial-congressional-media-security complex, especially the war profiteers and their favored politicians who stoke fear of the “evildoers.” All the better to scare you with.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He served for 30 years as an Army intelligence officer and then a CIA analyst.  He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

26 comments for “Why the Mideast Exploded, Really

  1. September 27, 2012 at 17:06

    If I can blog-whore a bit, I expressed my own view about the protests in the wake of the film, including a lengthy quote from something I wrote in October 2001, which raised some of the same points about ignoring the past which Ray McGovern did.

    (If you prefer the video version, it starts at about 14:45 here.)

  2. September 24, 2012 at 18:27

    the tragedy is not just palestinians–but iraqis, afghanis, iran and all other countries which the united states has need of their resources or whatever else we may consider ‘vital’ to our national security. so long as our country is ruled by the military-industrial-congressional-media conglomerate, we and the world will have neither democracy nor peace.
    the next terrorist is china!!!

  3. Mary T Anderson
    September 20, 2012 at 21:05

    I had the good fortune to live in Jericho from 2007 to 2010. Jericho was the first Jewish town to be given to the Arabs by the govt of Israel. Briefly, I learned that the reason Jericho is the only peaceful Arab town in Israel is that there are no Hamas nor Fatah leaders out to “make a name for themselves”. People in Jericho just want to have a life.
    I must mention watching Arab TV and seeing a beautiful little Arab boy of about three or four being interviewed for what he wanted to do when he grew up. With innocent sweetness, he answered, “I want to kill Jews!”. That, my friends, is why there will never be peace between these two people groups that could get along fine if their leaders would get out of the way.

  4. Carl Stoll
    September 19, 2012 at 16:42

    Something that Ray McGovern typically misses in his effort to understand and accommodate the Mohammedan fanatics protesting against the Mohammed film is that these demos are first and foremost AN ATTEMPT TO IMPOSE SO-CALLED SHARIA LAW ON THE WEST.

    Happen what may, we can never give in to such blackmail.

    Anyone who tells me I have to do obeisance to some fat pervert like Mohammed is in for a big surprise.

  5. wolvetalk1
    September 19, 2012 at 04:53

    why, or more percisely,,, how, same as like say why wounded knee, kept?(keeps) bleeding, oh gee golly HOW wow, some unique idiosyncracie, nope, just the same ole reverse engineering (?-decompiled) then by proxy rank tool crypto pre profiled agent goon, sprung in the clutches to appear as both tragic motus operendi nessesatate of clumsy state of an art, not murder gracefully sadistic, ya kno, at the digital core if ever actually navagated conscioussly that style of curve drapeing abouts the actual real tyme decision making processiz-zees’, intellageince, dread, how anti-democratic, not to mention constitutional or allied with freedom, & the robo-zoombie thare by “decreed”,,, mob rules at the vermin & swine eschalloen famaliar more to traitors than pirates, now thats a fair,,, whorr, 1 on 1 plus of horse 1 field of honour, decay corrupted, dare say,,, born dead “its” original principals unto the light of, well, the winds that be, over

  6. maha
    September 19, 2012 at 01:23

    Most who say the protests against the Muhammad satire are not about the insulting film are wrong. Most of these same folks dont read Arabic, havent visited Arab countries and dont know any Arabs personally. It WAS about the film. It is also about the years of abuse by the west and violent interventions and murder. But to dismiss the film as irrelevant lets the zionists off the hook. They WERE behind it and now its being blamed again on a third paryt while they get off scot free. Wake up.

    • Lee
      September 25, 2012 at 01:47

      Was it about the film? Yes and no, but mostly no. It was about radical Islamists celebration, commemoration of their stunning success of September 11, 2001. Organized forces struck the embassy first, quickly followed by intentionally riled up mob. The film’s fourteen minute trailer was used as a tool to manipulate and inflame the yes, hypersensitive, irrational passions of the latter. The trailer had initially been uploaded a few months earlier on You Tube. Al Qaeda operatives, scouring the net for easy crazy bait, seized upon it and began disseminating it widely in anticipation of their planned commemorative attack. The historical and continued self flagellation of westerners will haunt them in tragic ways going forward. Our leaders alternate between denial and apology, filling the gaps with a self deluded arrogance that radical Muslims aren’t intelligent, organized, or determined enough to cause any REAL harm to us. Yes, they are all those things and more…ignore that at your peril.

  7. Andy
    September 18, 2012 at 17:27

    Ok so the article can be summarized as this “protesters in Egypt and Libya had ages of oppression done to them (with some aid from US) so it’s understandable that they burn several people in US embassy – wouldn’t you”. If you dig deep enough you will find that EVERY single nationality/group has horrible things done to them for them to be perpetually pissed about: Indians should be burning British, Chinese should be burning Japanese, Japanese should be burning Americans, Jews should be burning almost everyone, blacks should be burning whites, women should be burning men and so on forever, right? How far do you go in justifying someone’s rage when they murder innocent people.

    Think about this: yes US supported Egypt during Mubarak reign, but it also supported Japanese and Germany during Post war recovery, Israel, South Korea etc.. and none of those countries ended up with Totalitarian regimes. So maybe, just maybe it’s not all US’s fault, may be it has also something to do with the country’s internal situation/culture. So before we go on excusing every mass murderer for not being hugged enough when he was a kid – let’s give it some rational though shell we.

  8. Randal Marlin
    September 17, 2012 at 22:28

    Great commentary as usual. Thanks for revealing the NYT excision. One thing to consider, though: my daughter spent two years in the UAE and observed that the Palestinians there were treated there with considerable contempt. It’s hard to reconcile that attitude with a deep and sincerely held championing of Palestinian rights in Israeli occupied territories. This observation is not meant to contradict what you say, but only to suggest that things may be more complex than one might assume from what you say.

    • G H G Mitte
      September 18, 2012 at 14:13

      Very good point…Situations usually are more “complex” that pre-planning assumes, once the day to day reality is entered.

      Just wanted to add however: If the contest comes to a choice of siding with Palestinians or Israel, which side do you think most in UAE will choose?

      • John
        September 18, 2012 at 16:18

        I don’t see what point you are trying to make GHG unless there is some underlying racist view being suggested. By international law Israel is guilty of extreme actions on and against Palestinians. In the UAE, many perceive the Palestinians with jealousy because in the past, many are often better educated. Palestinians at one point had a tremendously high level of education. Lately (last 30 years) Israel has made it harder for Palestinians to follow the educational course as the schools have been destroyed or closed. There are the few who have the resources to come abroad and get their schooling outside the region. I’ve met a few of the luckier ones.

  9. Jim Hoaks
    September 17, 2012 at 22:27

    Israel can defend itself with the hundreds of weapons they have.
    It should not ask others, like the US, to do this for it.
    I think they made a bad choice trying to establish their kingdom in the middle of Arab territories.

    • wizeanne
      September 18, 2012 at 02:06

      Jim, The UK offered Uganda first, but was rejected, hence the UK’s “Balfour Declaration” to Lord Rothchild, of land in Palestine to settle in. Lord Rothchild had been buying up land prior to the Balfour Declaration. One of the first recorded “acts” of terrorism, was those in the Egun groups who bombed the King David hotel, killing several UK people.

      • TskTsk
        September 19, 2012 at 10:37

        Yes, interesting how colonial powers assumed they could transfer land and the people on it like you would a farm yard with its attendant chickens and pigs. Interesting that the Brits didn’t offer a region in England, or even in Germany. The founding of Israel rests upon a tripod: Sympathy for the Jews, because of Hitler, White Supremacy, on the part of White Europeans (including Jews), and Religious Fanaticism, on the part of Zionists. There was neither moral nor legal basis for the birth of the Jewish State – it was beget by violent aggression/theft/murder.

        • September 24, 2012 at 18:21

          why not explain why it is, rather than answer in such an ignorant manner.

  10. Roy
    September 17, 2012 at 21:51

    Israel is under siege, located in the geographic center of a Muslim world that is intolerant of other religions, and has a right to defend itself against these nations who have never and will never accept its very existence under any circumstances. A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2010 found relatively widespread popular support for death penalty as a punishment for leaving Islam in Egypt (84% of respondents in favor of death penalty), Jordan (86% in favor), Indonesia (30% in favor), Pakistan (76% favor) and Nigeria (51% in favor).

    • G H G Mitte
      September 18, 2012 at 14:02

      Very revealing stats. Thanks for adding balanced input, although in general our policies in the Middle East especially have been unenlightened, ignorant and wrong-headed to say the least. We must take responsibility for reforming these policies, while still standing firm for the best in American and Constitutional values – and that means “walking our talk” EVERYWHERE WITH EVERYONE, or suffering even more loss of moral authority and the advantages that accompany such.

    • John
      September 18, 2012 at 16:05

      Before the the arrival of Zionism, the minority Jews lived in peace with Christians and Muslims. In the Ottoman Empire Jews had some political powers. With the arrival of Zionism and the talk of partition that all changed. With the development of the partition formula, sadly Muslims in Egypt and other parts, just reacting to the stress on the Palestinians and giving little thought started to push Jews out of their areas. The Jews had a place to go, the new Israel, the Palestinians forced out, nowhere.
      So they did and can live together, but history has divided them over and over again. Just as Jews remember the holocaust, so Palestinians remember the Nakba. And the present Muslim uprising over the film is not just about the film, it is the film, Hollywoods past racist depictions of Arabs, the West’s support of brutal Arab dictators, and the West’s refusal to abide by international law as far as the Palestinians are concerned all wrapped up together.
      I’m leary of the Pew Research figures (where who how etc). Palestinians I’ve met are no where near as intolerant as that. And besides Jews in Israel are not safe from their own kind in some districts if they don’t abide by the rules of the Sabbeth on Saturday. As for the role of women, you take Orthodox Jews, fundamentalist Christians, and extreme Muslims and women are all second class. Lets get past the fundamentalism and start communicating with those of less strong views. It works.

      • Dave
        September 19, 2012 at 02:47

        If all this is about the Muslims disgust at the treatment of the “Palestinians” as has been suggested, why then are countries surrounding the Palestinians turning them away, sending them to camps in no mans land, or allowing them in but with severely restricted rights and opportunities in work and education, housing and health care? Why is it not mentioned that Israel employs the majority of Palestinians, and that they enjoy higher wages and living standards than those working in the Palestinian Authority or Hezbollah/Hamas areas? Currently, Jordan, Syria, Egypt and others are turning Palestinians away, the self same Muslims we are led to believe they are rioting and killing over? Yes, US policy in the region is tied to Israel and its right to exist, but it is more tied to the continuation of the petrodollar and the USA’s domination of financial markets because of that hegemony, not Israel. If left to their own devices Muslims will find something else to be outraged about and continue their cycle of violence, Sunni’s kill Shiite’s and vice versa, Muslims in Indonesia kill Ahmadi Muslims etc. The cult of violence that is Islam, does have some genuine grievances, but mostly it is its own worst enemy and unfortunately is incompatible with western ways, as long as western ways place value of the individual over their “prophet”, Islam brooks no tolerance of that mindset, and as the Koran dictates those Muslims who encounter this way of life must, in fact are obliged, to change it by any means possible. Why this crude 14 minute parody evokes such a response is tied to that concept of Islam that the prophet and Allah come before anything. By the luck of geology they just happen to live in the regions with the most energy rich resources which western and other economies rely on, once the fossil fuels are gone, the region will be once again inhabited by desert dwelling nomads eking out whatever living they can. Muslims and Islam are bogged down in the seventh century, and will never advance if this is the way they see fit to demonstrate, or protest or get attention to their issues.

        • TskTsk
          September 19, 2012 at 10:31

          Dave, you’re questions and comments suggest that you need to go back and understand the very simple basis for all this tragedy. It started when some Zionists decided that they were going to populate Palestine with Jews and, by hook or crook, without any concern for the self determination of the majority of the people living there, confiscate enough land for the Jewish State. And they succeeded in that. That’s the simple crux. As a tad of elaboration, the Jews created Israel as a product of aggressive violence, and there was no legal basis whatsoever for the birth of Israel. Concerning your query why Arab countries do not assimilate Palestinians, some of the reason is because hope lies eternal in the Palestinian human breast that they will somehow witness Justice and receive compensation (that the World Court in 2004 said they deserved) when Jews stole their land. Thus, if the refugees were assimilated elsewhere, they would forfeit their legal claim to the land the Jews stole. Interesting that if you change the word “Muslims” to “Jews” in your statement: “If left to their own devices Muslims will find something else to be outraged about and continue their cycle of violence..” any Jewish supporter of Israel would immediately call you an anti-Semite and a Hater.

  11. W McMillan
    September 17, 2012 at 21:02

    I, for one, never fell for the “they hate us for our freedom” nonsense. The short is and was, “they” are pissed off at us for the dumb policies and the outrageous things we have done over the decades. Yes, I am deeply troubled by our Middle East policy that says Israel can do no wrong. The things that my country has supported because of Israel makes me very ashamed; we supported the dictatorship in Egypt because it benefited Israel. It seems everywhere we go, we try to rule other countries in a way that if that was done to us, we would take up arms and raise holy Hell. I am so saddened and more than a little outraged that we have all this technology and the average American is totally clueless about the things we have done in the world to abridge others freedoms. The whole military/industrial/congressional/corporate/corporate media complex needs to be crushed. All we have to do is stop being afraid and say “No more”.

  12. Elpidio Valdes
    September 17, 2012 at 20:45

    There is a significant, and growing, population in the US that believes conflagration in the mid east must occur to fulfill biblical prophecy and usher in the end times. This is a precursor to the rapture.

    They very much want this to take place. Fomenting trouble in the Arab world serves their interests.

    • Jeff
      September 18, 2012 at 00:00

      This is a very frightening reality…. Biblical prophesy has the value and validity of a badly written comic book. I work in the mental health field, and a good term for this phenomenon is “mass delusional paranoid system”. It is extremely toxic an disgusting. Our tolerance of such nonsensical rubbish is severely tried here.

  13. F. G. Sanford
    September 17, 2012 at 17:49

    The common sense question any observer of U.S. Policy in the Middle East should ask is, “What happens if the Arab World finally abandons its sectarian strife and unites around a common cause”? Dissent is usually brutally repressed by the very dictatorships U.S. Foreign policy props up. The Republicans favor bald-faced imperialism and military intervention, while the Democrats have fostered a softer variety of destabilization through so-called “color revolutions”. The common denominator between these strategies is the pacification by both parties of the Israel lobby. But given an issue which permits unfettered protest and does not, on the surface, threaten the status quo of the feudal monarchies and dictatorships, the repressed rage inspired by Western sponsored injustice erupts into the full fury of fruition.

    Mr. McGovern may appreciate the old story about Bridgett O’Malley, who has a female parrot that once belonged to a drunken sailor. An animal lover, Bridget takes custody of the parrot when the sailor dies, but it is a constant source of embarrassment. Bridget confesses to Father O’Shaunessey that she loves the bird, but it screeches a constant stream of the most foul and scathing epithets, sexual innuendo and immoral comments that her life has become a nightmare. As a good Catholic, she can’t resign herself to the moral dilemma of protecting an innocent creature while at the same time perpetuating sinful renditions of the most foul and objectionable moral turpitude. Father O’Shaunessey tells her, “Forget your worries, madam, I have two male parrots at the Rectory who pray all day long, say the rosary and quote Biblical verse from the King James Bible. You bring me your bird, and I’ll put her in the cage with my parrots. I’m sure their good influence will cause a miraculous change in her behavior.”

    So, on the day that this comes to pass, one male parrot turns to the other, and says: “Throw away your beads, Joe, this is what we’ve been praying for”. If there is a silver lining in the cloud of outrage sweeping the Middle East, it is the emergence of a common denominator which may help to give the Arab World a common voice and and a common cause to break the stranglehold of Western imposed foreign policy injustice. Maybe at long last, we will see an end to the fantasy that, “They hate us for our freedom”. I think this whole episode may be exactly “what they’ve been praying for”.

  14. Hillary
    September 17, 2012 at 15:14

    Is it acceptable to have soldiers knocking on a door at three in the morning and saying “This is my home” and forcing people out of homes their families have lived in for centuries? Check points and Jewish-only roads?

    Would Americans tolerate “White-only roads”?

    NO civilized person anywhere can support the criminal activity of Israel and
    yet California Passes a Resolution Equating Criticism of Israel With Anti-Semitism


    A world then witnesses spellbound as Bibi Netanyahu receives a record number of standing ovations from a seemingly bought and paid for US Congress.

    Iraq has been forgotten and “dumbed down” Americans still don’t realize just how dangerous their misplaced loyalty to Israel has become as “Bomb Iran” hysteria relentlessly emanates from Tel Aviv and its Washington outposts.

    Israel was created, aided and abetted and survives by U.S. money and arms.

    Among the chief beneficiaries of US “woodenheaded approach” is Israel ?

    That is why “they” hate us but nobody dare say so.

    • September 24, 2012 at 18:13

      this person obviously lacks basic intelligence and is unable to setforth his grievance in a rational, civilized manner.

      sad indeed!!! for israeli defenders.

Comments are closed.