Friday 22nd of November 2024
Home » Blogs » John Richardson's blog

defining terrorism .....

defining terrorism .....

Back in February, 2007, a controversy erupted when University of Tennessee Law Professor Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds advocated that, in response to Iran's nuclear activities, the U.S. should be "killing radical mullahs and iranian [sic] atomic scientists" -- in other words, have the U.S. Government select religious leaders and scientists it dislikes in Iran and just murder them, despite long-standing domestic and international legal prohibitions on exactly such programs.  

Today, an Iranian nuclear scientist and professor at Tehran University, Massoud Ali Mohammadi, was killed when "when a bomb strapped to a motorcycle was triggered by remote control outside his home in the northern Tehran neighbourhood of Qeytariyeh."  Mohammadi taught neutron physics and "was the author of several articles on quantum and theoretical physics in scientific journals," though the extent of his involvement in Iran's nuclear program is unclear.

Although the Iranian government has issued a statement blaming the U.S. and Israel for this rather sophisticated and well-executed assassination, there is no actual evidence yet of who is responsible.  It's possible that the killing is related to Iran's complex internal conflicts rather than its nuclear program.  There is, however, ample evidence that the U.S. covertly provides various means of support to extremist groups which have previously carried out violent terrorist attacks inside Iran -- which, in other contexts, is called being a "state sponsor of terror."  In the very recent past, other Iranian nuclear scientists and officials have disappeared and ended up in the custody of the U.S. and its allies -- either abducted or defected, depending on who you believe.

Whatever else is true, this murder of Professor Mohammadi is rather clearly an act of pure terrorism.  As Kevin Drum wrote of Reynolds' proposal:

Killing civilian scientists and civilian leaders, even if you do it quietly, is unquestionably terrorism. That's certainly what we'd consider it if Hezbollah fighters tried to kill cabinet undersecretaries and planted bombs at the homes of Los Alamos engineers. What's more, if we took this tack against Iran, we'd be doing it for the same reason that terrorists target us: because it's a more effective, more winnable tactic than conventional war.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/12/iran_scientist/index.html

If a lie is told often enough.....

When will it be universally accepted that, in truth, the Hebrews (later called Jews after Judah), were only one of the Semitic Tribes?  This from About.com.:Achaeology

Definition: The term Semitic tribes (or Semites) refers to several groups of nomads and camel pastoralists who spoke related Semitic languages and included Arabs, Aramaeans, Jews, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Abyssinians, and Phoenicians. They roamed Arabia and Mesopotamia beginning somewhere in the third to fourth millennium BC, and dominated the Babylonian society beginning about 3000 BC. They are associated with the invention of the earliest alphabet, from evidence found at Serabit el-Khadem, on the Sinai peninsula of modern Egypt.

So, in truth again, the propaganda power of the Zionists has continued to lie about what is really anti-Semitic and the world media have allowed it.  Why?

Some countries have even outlawed "anti-Semitism" BUT ONLY WHEN IT APPLIES TO JEWS!  Fair dinkum.

Therefore the printing of the internationally accepted information that the Zionists (Jews) were indeed influential in the illegal invasion of Iraq is just as repulsive as was their infamous deal with England.  And that was to humiliate the Germans into defeat in WW 1 rather than let the British; French and Germans activate their negotiated peace formula in 1917. Subsequently, there was the unnecessary loss of millions of lives of both combatants and civilians due to this unholy influence exerted so deceptively by the Jewish authorities in the US.

What did "Britain" (no longer Great Britain) gain from this Jewish treachery since the Zionists themselves had previously supported Germany?  The English gained the support of the Americans - whose President lied to convince them that they were going to war due to the bestial act of a German Submarine against a US ship - and it never happened at all.  Struth.

What did the Jews get for this betrayal of changing sides - when the outcome was apparent - by influencing the US to enter the war on a lie - the illegal promise of the land of Palestine! That is the land and home for thousands of years of another Semitic tribe who had actually assisted England in that repulsive "Great War"! It should be noted that Ben Gurion's Brigade lost 25 in that war after 1917.

So we have to deal with the following facts eventually....

1.  Israel does not legally exist as a nation or any type of accepted landlord.

2.  The Jewish Occupation Forces in Palestine are war criminals of the same mould as the Nazis.

3.  The deal between Britain and the Zionists in 1917 was correctly noted by Hitler and all other influential Germans as betrayal by their Jewish ally to their enemy England/France - and for personal gain - and before the opportunity was lost by a negotiated peace.

4.  Any democratic country (if there is such a thing, including Australia) which is faced with the protest that abusing Africans/Iraqis/Iranians and Afghanistans for example - is also ANTI-SEMITIC - would be forced by International Law to accept the plea.

But then that would be justice wouldn't it?

God Bless Australia.  NE OUBLIE.