Posted by Socrates in 'Middle East', Pakistan, Socrates, sovereignty, Syria, tikkun olam, War On Israel's Enemies, Zionism at 7:28 pm |

by Jacob G. Hornberger: [Here].
by Jacob G. Hornberger: [Here].
Neoconservatism’s tentacles reach farther and farther. This will only anger Syria’s new “big brother,” Russia: [Article].
If no deal is reached, Zionism may suffer a big setback. Indeed, when/if U.S. troops leave, a hard-line Muslim could end up controlling Iraq, which would be bad news for Isntreal. (The United Nations mandate that authorizes the American troop presence in Iraq expires Dec. 31): [Article].
For Israel’s benefit, of course. But a 2008 timetable for troop withdrawal seems worthless, since a lot can happen in four years. The Middle East is an unpredictable place: [Article].
Regarding the previous post: it’s interesting that a fellow named Sheinwald was Prime Minister Tony Blair’s top foreign policy adviser: [Article].
England didn’t have to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, which did nothing but anger the Muslims. Which British Jews were responsible for that? [Article].
The war on Israel’s enemies – a.k.a. “the war on terror” and “the war on turr” – expands into Pakistan: [Article].
The neocons want it “on the official record” that America is still engaged in an ongoing “war” against shadowy Muslims who do wicked things because they “hate our freedom” (not because of Jews/Israel/Zionism). A century from now, when this “war” is finally over, maybe the vision on Israel’s flag will be a reality [1]: [Article]. […]
It’s part of the war on Israel’s enemies, a.k.a., the “war on terror.” But some states won’t cooperate with Real ID: [Article].
Lieberman, an orthodox Jew, is chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Why is that? By the way, when Lieberman says “we,” who is he referring to? [Article].