joe, this is intriguing because it references bernard lewis, whose write-up in wikipedia actually includes his prediction of the 8/22 attack. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lewis hopefully teheran has been alerted to this garbage and will not prove lewis right, even if they have been planning such an attack.
actually, the notion of an attack on israel may show just how completely out of touch lewis is. if iran were to attack israel, it would seem perfectly foolish to do so on a designated date, as opposed to using some form of israeli aggression as an excuse.
this latest israeli insanity in lebanon would seem the best excuse they've encountered in a long time.
my sense, for what it's worth, is that iran is far more interested in being taken seriously in the international arena than it is in starting a religious war. to do so would be international suicide, and ahmadinejad seems savvy enough to recognize this.
interestingly, that piece is most intriguing because it exposes lewis as the biased colonialist many have felt him to be.
Comment in Pravda was secondary. Bernard Lewis's article appeared in the Wall Street Journal on 8 August. It's online here:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008768
I went to the Pravda site to look for their write-up, and couldn't find it.
Instead I found the info that the Iranian authorities have banned the sale of the Economist - a very influential mag, whose guys for example work as 'rapporteurs' (whatever that means) at Bilderberg meets.
They say the reason was that the Economist referred on a map to 'The Gulf', rather than calling it the Persian Gulf. At least they didn't go as far as National Geographic, who in 2004 called it the Arabian Gulf.
Note that UK-based big business and its government has to play to an Arab market at the same time as slavishly following pro-Israeli US foreign policy. Which to my mind explains why much of the UK media was supposedly against the Suez War in 1956. Words were cheap, then as now. Leader columns weren't a significant part of the reason why Brit troops ended up pulling out.
Boris Berezovsky, the former capo di tutti capi in Russia, who holds Israeli citizenship and is under Brit protection, has suggested that Arab oil could be 'replaced' with Russian oil.
It seems to me that if nuclear war is part of the plan for the Middle East, as appears to be the case, and as Joe has often argued here, this could be a very shrewd observation. As in, nuke the sh*t out of the oilfields and buy off the Russians with the biggest oil deal the world has ever seen. Moscow is already being promoted as a thriving oil city, full of international oil-related business opportunities.
And whilst many focus on the oil supply, let's recall that demand too is finite.
Lewis incidentally has a criminal conviction for denying the Armenian holocaust. He seems to me to be talking garbage about 22 August...but...???
As also alleged on the Economist cover page, but I don't understand it. One million people have been terrorised out of their homes, and the UN looks as though it may play its accustomed role of blackmailing people who really need guns into giving them up. In this case, in return for shelter, viz. being allowed back to their homes, if their homes still exist. Admittedly this leaves aside the issue of how many weapons were hidden in the area prior to evacuation. But if you think Israel lost, what was their aim and how did they fail to achieve it? In any case, surely it fits into a regional policy rather than being merely a 'local' war? And whilst I do not believe nuclear war will begin this Tuesday, things are hotting up w.r.t. Iran.
4 comments:
joe, this is intriguing because it references bernard lewis, whose write-up in wikipedia actually includes his prediction of the 8/22 attack.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lewis
hopefully teheran has been alerted to this garbage and will not prove lewis right, even if they have been planning such an attack.
actually, the notion of an attack on israel may show just how completely out of touch lewis is. if iran were to attack israel, it would seem perfectly foolish to do so on a designated date, as opposed to using some form of israeli aggression as an excuse.
this latest israeli insanity in lebanon would seem the best excuse they've encountered in a long time.
my sense, for what it's worth, is that iran is far more interested in being taken seriously in the international arena than it is in starting a religious war. to do so would be international suicide, and ahmadinejad seems savvy enough to recognize this.
interestingly, that piece is most intriguing because it exposes lewis as the biased colonialist many have felt him to be.
but we'll see.
Comment in Pravda was secondary. Bernard Lewis's article appeared in the Wall Street Journal on 8 August. It's online here:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008768
I went to the Pravda site to look for their write-up, and couldn't find it.
Instead I found the info that the Iranian authorities have banned the sale of the Economist - a very influential mag, whose guys for example work as 'rapporteurs' (whatever that means) at Bilderberg meets.
http://www.pravda.ru/news/world/15-06-2006/87782-0
They say the reason was that the Economist referred on a map to 'The Gulf', rather than calling it the Persian Gulf. At least they didn't go as far as National Geographic, who in 2004 called it the Arabian Gulf.
Note that UK-based big business and its government has to play to an Arab market at the same time as slavishly following pro-Israeli US foreign policy. Which to my mind explains why much of the UK media was supposedly against the Suez War in 1956. Words were cheap, then as now. Leader columns weren't a significant part of the reason why Brit troops ended up pulling out.
Boris Berezovsky, the former capo di tutti capi in Russia, who holds Israeli citizenship and is under Brit protection, has suggested that Arab oil could be 'replaced' with Russian oil.
It seems to me that if nuclear war is part of the plan for the Middle East, as appears to be the case, and as Joe has often argued here, this could be a very shrewd observation. As in, nuke the sh*t out of the oilfields and buy off the Russians with the biggest oil deal the world has ever seen. Moscow is already being promoted as a thriving oil city, full of international oil-related business opportunities.
And whilst many focus on the oil supply, let's recall that demand too is finite.
Lewis incidentally has a criminal conviction for denying the Armenian holocaust. He seems to me to be talking garbage about 22 August...but...???
b
The only problem with all of this is Israel lost the war in Lebanon.
As also alleged on the Economist cover page, but I don't understand it. One million people have been terrorised out of their homes, and the UN looks as though it may play its accustomed role of blackmailing people who really need guns into giving them up. In this case, in return for shelter, viz. being allowed back to their homes, if their homes still exist. Admittedly this leaves aside the issue of how many weapons were hidden in the area prior to evacuation. But if you think Israel lost, what was their aim and how did they fail to achieve it? In any case, surely it fits into a regional policy rather than being merely a 'local' war? And whilst I do not believe nuclear war will begin this Tuesday, things are hotting up w.r.t. Iran.
b
Post a Comment