Iran or Israel: The Democrat Party Has Chosen

No thinking American can vote Democrat......especially Jewish Americans


"Iran Mullahs Escalate Threats Against Jews, Biden Administration Appeases Mullahs Even More

  • These US rewards to Iran for terrorism, destabilizing the region, treating its own people with brutality and cheating on 2015 nuclear deal would significantly increase Iran's revenues; these, in turn, will doubtless be funneled into the pockets of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Quds Force and their militia and terror groups including Hamas, the Houthis and Hezbollah for still more expansionism and terror.
  • Additionally, Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi openly called for the destruction of Israel as he addressed anti-Israeli rallies: "This great movement that we are witnessing today in the form of protests is a symbol of the solidarity of the Muslim people that will lead to the destruction of the Zionist regime."
  • Since the Biden administration assumed office, it has pursued the maximum appeasement policy with the ruling mullahs of Iran.
  • Instead of standing with its staunch allies in the Middle East, the Biden administration appears determined to stand with the Iranian regime. The ruling mullahs nonetheless appear intent on taking over their oil-rich neighbors, and eliminating Israel and the United States -- all as America seems to imagine, falsely, that it can bribe its way into being spared."

  • View attachment 641595
  • Iran Mullahs Escalate Threats Against Jews, Biden Administration Appeases Mullahs Even More




Any Democrat want to answer this?
. What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by Obama's guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

Joe Biden has a "10% for the big guy" agreement with Iran. He doesn't have one with Israel.

Biden family first, America last.
 
Look even at the recent 5 years, and compare it to the pace 10 years ago.
When trying to understand what is possible, we shouldn't define it by
the limits of a specific amount of action in a time frame,
rather by absolute goals.

"If You will it, it ain't a legend" - B. Z. Herzl
"Not upon You the finishing of the craft,
and ain't You a free man to drift out from it"
- Rabbi Tarfon
By sovereign nation-states, for example, Ukraine comes to mind.
By empires, states holding entire nations and countries under their governance,
with a clear policy to expand its rule and influence further, by war or protectorates.

The US is an empire in a typical crisis, the EU though by enertia enacting an imperialist
foreign policy, however, the goal of expansion and influence is not there, it's closer to,
"families of the land" in that despite giving up on certain aspects of national
sovereignty, these are neither really autonomies, recognize each other
as nations, the whole discourse and tension are about that.
The UK has ceased to be and abandoned any ambitions
for its position as a global leader, though politically
still a strong country, unlike its EU counterparts.

Russia is a classic example of an empire.
And I think we should take Russian expressed fears,
without cynicism but not literally, in that each empire, upon its fall,
knowingly or not, prefers to direct its struggle outwards, counterintuitive.
It's the wrong thing to do, in that ignites the fall within and from the outside.
But despite the wrong conclusion, and how they act on it, the basic intuition is correct.

Iran is in the same category,
their revolution can only expand,
as they are trying to further establish
influence and presence on the ground,
either through conflict and as protectorates,
while ideologically competing for global leadership.

China, of course, enacts a clearly imperialist policy, leveraging conflicts
to challenge the Western domination of economic structures,
and to leverage their position as the alternative for,
the mainstream of global ideology overall.

How do we develop cooperation
with sovereign nation-states
within empires?

By recognizing their title to sovereignty, and cooperating with them
i.e. "giving them freedom", but in a manner that ideologically
counters the imperialist attitude. Go on the offensive.

They fight outside to take over other countries,
we can fight inside by motivating cooperation
on the basis of national sovereignty, taking
responsibility for their actions and future.

And the best players to do it, are indeed the smallest nations,
that have clearly no chance to challenge an entire empire, or seeking likely control.
It's the counter dynamics to Russian and Iranian actions. Who on average, are the bigger polities, comprising of a variety of larger nations, focusing their expansion efforts on smaller states outside.
Ukraine, for example, can't be anyone's protectorate, it's an advantage to motivate cooperation, and
help likely nations establish their position focusing entirely on ideological, culturally-universal means.

There're more nations, actual distinct civilizations, than empires,
leverage empires against empires, and only strike when
needed just once, in cooperation with others
seeking likely sovereignty and liberty.

It's not even an effort, but rather a process, if a nation represents something true,
its existence itself says something fundamentally true, and relevant to human
progress, it will be free even by mere natural circumstance.
Whether they currently want it or not, however, if their
collective mission is done, nothing relevant to say,
like with empires, no matter the effort,
remain but history.
Well, I am not sure I understood properly your point. There will always be countries that pursue expansionist foreign policy. Stronger and weaker countries, depending on their population, location, economy etc.

Okay, not empires, but regional leaders. Germany and France in Europe, Turkey and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East and so on.

Weaker countries will seek protection in stronger countries from other strong countries. In this way, alliances are formed.

War in Ukraine is all about choosing a 'better' protectorate.
 
Well, I am not sure I understood properly your point. There will always be countries that pursue expansionist foreign policy. Stronger and weaker countries, depending on their population, location, economy etc.

Okay, not empires, but regional leaders. Germany and France in Europe, Turkey and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East and so on.

Weaker countries will seek protection in stronger countries from other strong countries. In this way, alliances are formed.

War in Ukraine is all about choosing a 'better' protectorate.

Yes, expansionist policy, as in narrow, in a way also natural to nation states.
Imperialism though, empires are competing for global leadership,
also through ideology-religion as for economic domination.

Regional leadership by nation states is a good thing, to express each their unique strengths and talents,
cooperation can be initiated by smaller, or average states motivating regional leadership,
responsibility and strong allies to counter imperialist expansion on the ground,
but mainly with ideology, being the advantage of independent nation states.
Small states have other advantages, they're percieved differently,
and much more flexible than empires.

Look at Arab-Muslim imperialism
and the one country preventing
their exclusive domination in
the Middle East and Africa.

Nation seeming incapable, can turn the tables,
become regional leader, sometimes by
natural circumstance, and to their
own amazement.

Forget about protectorate -
or face expiration of Ukraine as an identity.
Sometimes there're points in history You are
expected greatness despite unprepared or ground facts.

I certainly lack the perspective and information on the subject,
but EU membership seems a much better choice, even if
not formally declared in the open, but don't rely on
the idea of a protectorate, motivate responsibility.
 
Last edited:
Yes, expansionist policy, as in narrow, in a way also natural to nation states.
Imperialism though, empires are competing for global leadership,
also through ideology-religion as for economic domination.

Regional leadership by nation states is a good thing, to express each their unique strengths and talents,
cooperation can be initiated by smaller, or average states motivating regional leadership,
responsibility and strong allies to counter imperialist expansion on the ground,
but mainly with ideology, being the advantage of independent nation states.
Small states have other advantages, they're percieved differently,
and much more flexible than empires.

Look at Arab-Muslim imperialism
and the one country preventing
their exclusive domination in
the Middle East and Africa.

Nation seeming incapable, can turn the tables,
become regional leader, sometimes by
natural circumstance, and to their
own amazement.

Forget about protectorate -
or face expiration of Ukraine as an identity.
Sometimes there're points in history You are
expected greatness despite unprepared or ground facts.

I certainly lack the perspective and information on the subject,
but EU membership seems a much better choice, even if
not formally declared in the open, but don't rely on
the idea of a protectorate, motivate responsibility.
Okay. What do we have now? Let's look at Europe. There is a war ongoing there, in some part of it. What should be done to stop it and to prevent similar conflict in the future. I mean some definite steps that can be realized on practice.
 
Okay. What do we have now? Let's look at Europe. There is a war ongoing there, in some part of it. What should be done to stop it and to prevent similar conflict in the future. I mean some definite steps that can be realized on practice.

Essentially, it's the same war expressing different forms in various parts of Europe.
Conflicts are by nature ideological-civilizational, even when for resources, though
it's clearly not the main issue of most of the relatively recent major conflicts.
And since, sadly war is the natural situation in humanity, with periods of
peace being remarkable - acting from a position of 'preventing',
i.e. postponing, increases the pressure to be released.

Some conflicts are just, in that each side can
stand their justice and historic relevance.
But again, conflicts are by nature of
synthesis - Europe has a wealth
of intellect for that challenge.

All that to say,
instead of 'preventing',
forcus on strategic leverage.

1. Organize ideologically -
a. Focus on leverage, coordination, and national responsibility
b. Synthesize true to Your values, a relevant position, to stand a viable alternative
c. With that synthesis prepared and common in Your speech, come for Torah from Jerusalem.

2. Organize militarily
a. Empires are not stable, prepare to participate in their worst conflicts, on Your soil.
Show of force, mass drafting, and exercises are valid both as immediate responses and routine,
to strengthen alliances, understand, and leverage provocations - focus on national responsibility.
b. Seek alternative alliances, there're rising global players, with whom an alliance can be a valuable
alternative to the current order. With whom there's enough but not too sharp contrast ideologically.
c. Regarding Israel and Iran - take an informed clear position, also with regard to positions of Turkey,
and Egypt regarding Iran - whether Europeans want to deal with Iran on the Middeterannean front or
have an ideological intermediary between them and the extreme ideologies in the West-East challenge.
d. Invest in strengthening an alternative Middeteranean alliance for a transitional counterbalanced front.

P.S. I.m saying 'without sharp contrasting positions', suggesting taking an informed position on Iran,
might seem a contradiction, if not for the fact that here the EU is anyway involved in that front,
including the larger context of imperialist players like Turkey, and opposing Sunni and Shia.
European nations have a historic choice, Jerusalem or Tehran, if they'll go against Israel,
they'll bring on themselves by losing both their contrasting ideological standing,
and strategically motivating Islamic expansion weakening their own morale.
Currently many in Europe side with Islamic imperialists against Israel,
so maybe there's justice in Europeans losing on various fronts.
.
 
Last edited:
Essentially, it's the same war expressing different forms in various parts of Europe.
Conflicts are by nature ideological-civilizational, even when for resources, though
it's clearly not the main issue of most of the relatively recent major conflicts.
And since, sadly war is the natural situation in humanity, with periods of
peace being remarkable - acting from a position of 'preventing',
i.e. postponing, increases the pressure to be released.

Some conflicts are just, in that each side can
stand their justice and historic relevance.
But again, conflicts are by nature of
synthesis - Europe has a wealth
of intellect for that challenge.

All that to say,
instead of 'preventing',
forcus on strategic leverage.

1. Organize ideologically -
a. Focus on leverage, coordination, and national responsibility
b. Synthesize true to Your values, a relevant position, to stand a viable alternative
c. With that synthesis prepared and common in Your speech, come for Torah from Jerusalem.

2. Organize militarily
a. Empires are not stable, prepare to participate in their worst conflicts, on Your soil.
Show of force, mass drafting, and exercises are valid both as immediate responses and routine,
to strengthen alliances, understand, and leverage provocations - focus on national responsibility.
b. Seek alternative alliances, there're rising global players, with whom an alliance can be a valuable
alternative to the current order. With whom there's enough but not too sharp contrast ideologically.
c. Regarding Israel and Iran - take an informed clear position, also with regard to positions of Turkey,
and Egypt regarding Iran - whether Europeans want to deal with Iran on the Middeterannean front or
have an ideological intermediary between them and the extreme ideologies in the West-East challenge.
d. Invest in strengthening an alternative Middeteranean alliance for a transitional counterbalanced front.

P.S. I.m saying 'without sharp contrasting positions', suggesting taking an informed position on Iran,
might seem a contradiction, if not for the fact that here the EU is anyway involved in that front,
including the larger context of imperialist players like Turkey, and opposing Sunni and Shia.
European nations have a historic choice, Jerusalem or Tehran, if they'll go against Israel,
they'll bring on themselves by losing both their contrasting ideological standing,
and strategically motivating Islamic expansion weakening their own morale.
Currently many in Europe side with Islamic imperialists against Israel,
so maybe there's justice in Europeans losing on various fronts.
.
You try to assume that alliances are formed on cultural or 'civilizational' basis. Yes, that is also true. But quite often alliances are based on practical base when the participants are pursuing their own economic or security aims.

Year ago or so Israel denied to sell some weapons to Ukraine. Unofficially, it was claimed that Israel didn't want to worsen relations with Russia, cooperation with which was considered important on Syrian track. Also, former Israeli prime minister was proud to have close personal relations with Putin. Do these countries have common 'civilizational' basis? I don't think so. Only practical considerations.

The same with Iran. I have little sympathy for the regime there. But it has vast natural resources and the world so needs them. How to deal with security issues that will only gain momentum when huge amounts of cash will be flowing in, I don't know.

Overall, with the regard of the Middle East, I think that we are seeing as three regional centers of influence arising there. The Gulf monarchies (with Saudi Arabia as a main player), Turkey and Iran. And all relations will be revolving around them.
 
You try to assume that alliances are formed on cultural or 'civilizational' basis. Yes, that is also true. But quite often alliances are based on practical base when the participants are pursuing their own economic or security aims.

Year ago or so Israel denied to sell some weapons to Ukraine. Unofficially, it was claimed that Israel didn't want to worsen relations with Russia, cooperation with which was considered important on Syrian track. Also, former Israeli prime minister was proud to have close personal relations with Putin. Do these countries have common 'civilizational' basis? I don't think so. Only practical considerations.

The same with Iran. I have little sympathy for the regime there. But it has vast natural resources and the world so needs them. How to deal with security issues that will only gain momentum when huge amounts of cash will be flowing in, I don't know.

Overall, with the regard of the Middle East, I think that we are seeing as three regional centers of influence arising there. The Gulf monarchies (with Saudi Arabia as a main player), Turkey and Iran. And all relations will be revolving around them.

I'm suggesting (2.b) healthy contrast strengthens alliances.
And cultural, and ideological, the underlying basis of all the wars.

Practically Ukraine never had anything to suggest Israel, especially not
in the context of having an understanding regarding military activity
in a bordering state, under Russian control. Which is nothing like
fueling Russia with cash and markets, quiet the opposite.

Overall regarding the Middle East, beside the empires
let's not forget Egypt, the elephant in the room.
Though not an empire, the biggest state in the
region. And none of them like having Iran
on their borders. Strenghthening Iran
neither postpone the consequence
of the Turkish-Iranian war.
 
I'm suggesting (2.b) healthy contrast strengthens alliances.
And cultural, and ideological, the underlying basis of all the wars.

Practically Ukraine never had anything to suggest Israel, especially not
in the context of having an understanding regarding military activity
in a bordering state, under Russian control. Which is nothing like
fueling Russia with cash and markets, quiet the opposite.

Overall regarding the Middle East, beside the empires
let's not forget Egypt, the elephant in the room.
Though not an empire, the biggest state in the
region. And none of them like having Iran
on their borders. Strenghthening Iran
neither postpone the consequence
of the Turkish-Iranian war.
Yes, you are right, Ukraine couldn't and can't offer anything on practice. Russia, on the other hand, offered Israel a military cooperation in Syria which enabled Israeli Air forces to conduct operations there.

Ironically, this cooperation may have gone not as it planned. I have read reports that some Russian troops was moved from Syria to Ukraine and their bases on Syrian soil were handed to pro-Iranian military groups. Though, I don't know how true was these reports.

Turkish-Iranian war? You think it is possible? I don't think a direct conflict may happen. Maybe some sort of a proxy war in Syria
 
Yes, you are right, Ukraine couldn't and can't offer anything on practice. Russia, on the other hand, offered Israel a military cooperation in Syria which enabled Israeli Air forces to conduct operations there.

Ironically, this cooperation may have gone not as it planned. I have read reports that some Russian troops was moved from Syria to Ukraine and their bases on Syrian soil were handed to pro-Iranian military groups. Though, I don't know how true was these reports.

Turkish-Iranian war? You think it is possible? I don't think a direct conflict may happen. Maybe some sort of a proxy war in Syria

I frankly don't know how You determine when things go 'not as planned',
to me, it seems to miss the point of planning to be limited by any set
of plans. Another thing is the generational understanding, between
leaders, expressing a trajectory, in that each understands,
the distinctions first, they are clear, and thus more
reliable. It's also a generation of long-term
leaders, in contrast to the US.

In any scenario of Iran attempting to establish
a millitary presence at the Middeteranean,
they'e openning a front against Turkey.
Egypt, for any interested, is arming
franticly like no tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
I frankly don't know how You determine when things go 'not as planned',
to me, it seems to miss the point of planning to be limited by any set
of plans. Another thing is the generational understanding, between
leaders, expressing a trajectory, in that each understands,
the distinctions first, they are clear, and thus more
reliable. It's also a generation of long-term
leaders, in contrast to the US.

In any scenario of Iran attempting to establish
a millitary presence at the Middeteranean,
they'e openning a front against Turkey.
Egypt, for any interested, is arming
franticly like no tomorrow.
'Not as planned' I meant in the context when Russian bases in Syria were handed to pro-Iranian proxies. So, I want to underline that I don't know whether those reports were true

The Middeterannean is a vast region. Basically, with friendly regime in Syria and their proxes in Lebanon, Iran already has military presence there.
 
surada said:
The PNAC presented the same plan in 1998 and many of the signatories were dual citizens.

I have asked Suradie to define the term "DUAL
CITIZEN. I am confident she will when she gets
the chance to do so.
 
1654270935490.png
 



You are such disgusting sleaze.



1. Jan. 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler became the newly appointed Chancellor of Germany, Arabs throughout the Mideast petitioned to join the Nazi party.



a. Mein Kampf was rated 4th on the best-seller list among Palestinians in a survey conducted and reported in PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida. Source: Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (Fatah), Sept. 2, 1999

b. Books such as Mein Kampf,The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and The International Jew are high on Turkish bestseller lists, and are displayed prominently in the front of bookstores

c. There are even Palestinians whose first name is “Hitler”: Hitler Salah [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (Fatah), Sept. 28, 2005], Hitler Abu-Alrab [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (Fatah), Jan. 27, 2005], Hitler Mahmud Abu-Libda [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (Fatah), Dec.18, 2000.]



2. There were thousands of Muslims who directly joined and aided the Nazi war efforts, forming at least three Waffen SS Divions. “These SS Jihadists assisted the Ustashi Croats in their slaughter of 800,000 Serbs and Jews.” http://prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Clubs_Handschar_Muslim_Waffen_SS.Islam

a. In Yugoslavia, Muslims and the Catholic Church formed the Ustashe, the most brutal of all Nazi forces: the German Croatian fuehrer, Dr. Ante Pavelic had a basket of 40 pounds of eyes on his desk. The guards in prison camp had a contest to see who could slit more throats in one night: the winner slit 1,350. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem organized these squads.



"In 1935 the Iranian government requested those countries which it had diplomatic relations with, to call Persia "Iran," which is the name of the country in Persian.

The suggestion for the change is said to have come from the Iranian ambassador to Germany, who came under the influence of the Nazis. At the time Germany was in the grip of racial fever and cultivated good relations with nations of "Aryan" blood. "
Iran Chamber Society: When "Persia" became "Iran"






I see you gave up trying to deny that Obama is a crypto-Islamist.
 

Forum List

Back
Top