Insatiable US Thirst for Muslim Blood Surpasses 27 Million

By: Kayhan Int’l 

It is said, the Mongol marauder Chingiz Khan, beginning with the killing of his elder half-brother, Bekter, at the age of 13, was responsible for the death of at least 40 million people, including some 15 million Iranian Muslims or the three-fourth population of the Iranian Plateau in the early 13th century.
We have no estimates of how many million lives the British snuffed out during their two-and-a-half centuries of colonial rule over an empire on which they used to brag, ‘the sun never sets”.
During the six destructive years of the Second World War, the total death toll inflicted by the Allied and Axis forces was around 85 million, of whom over 50 million were civilians, including victims of the American terrorist atomic bombing of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – an unpardonable crime.
In our own times, Saddam of the repressive Ba’th minority regime of Baghdad, massacred some two million Iraqi Shi’a Arab Muslims with the blessings of the US, Britain, and Saudi Arabia, during his 24-year reign of terror that also saw his criminal hands dipped in the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iranian martyrs of the 8-year imposed war.
Now comes the report, compiled by an investigative journalist that the US has killed at least 27 million Muslims throughout the world, since the suspicious incidents in New York on September 11, 2001.
Dr. Kevin Barrett, an American academic who has been studying the events of 9/11 since late 2003, made the disclosure at the Watson Institute of International Public Affairs of Brown University on Rhode Island.
He refutes the notion of a mere 800,000 direct war deaths in Afghanistan and Pakistan, saying:
"As a matter of fact, according to Dr Gideon Polya – one of the world’s leading avoidable mortality experts and a science professor from Australia – there’s been a 27-million Muslim holocaust due to the so-called wars on terror, while another five million people who would have been born have not been born because the people who would have been their parents were killed, meaning 32 million people are gone from the world who should be there because of these wars.”  
Barret also says that the real cost of these conflicts is much higher than the supposed six trillion figure cited by the US Administration.
According to him: "It’s really almost impossible to exaggerate the level of horrific catastrophe that has happened due to the American and Israeli authorities deciding to go ahead and do their false flag operation in blowing up the World Trade Center, which was slated for demolition for years. New York City was desperate to take it down.”
He dismisses the official US version that the 9/11 incidents were carried out by 19 al-Qaeda terrorists, pointing out that many experts have raised questions about this account, since "they believe that rogue elements within the US government, such as former Vice President Dick Cheney, orchestrated or at least encouraged the 9/11 attacks in order to accelerate the US war machine and advance the Zionist agenda.”
Whatever the facts about New York’s twin-tower 110-storey high World Trade Center, there is no denying of the truth that the US is a satanic state with an insatiable thirst for human blood, and destruction of Muslim lands.
This is evident by its 40-year long economic and other forms of terrorism against Iran; its direct destruction of Afghanistan; its drone attacks in Pakistan; its destabilization and depopulation of Syria and Iraq; its approval of the genocide of Rohingya Muslims by the Myanmar junta; its support for the unabated killing of the Palestinian people by Israel; its supply of lethal weapons to Saudi Arabia for the almost 5-year long war that is threatening the lives of millions; its involvement in the civil war in Libya, the sedition in Somalia, the bloody coup in Sudan, and the mayhem in Nigeria; its orders to the Aal-e Khalifa minority pirate regime to brutally suppress the Bahraini Muslims; its blood-soaked installing of General Abdel-Fattah as-Sisi in Egypt to exterminate the Muslim Brotherhood; and last but not the least, its meddling to mess up the situation in Lebanon.
Of course, there will be more deaths in different parts of the world in the coming months and years, because of the bloodthirsty nature of an avaricious US, which has recently tightened its tentacles on Syria’s oil fields, in addition to its complete control of the oil installations of Iraq of which the media remains mum.
In other words, as US-Israeli agents burn down government buildings, loot public and private properties, and target and kill peaceful protestors in Iraq – as well as in Iran during the recent riots – the world people are unaware that Iraq remains a US-occupied country. They hear nothing about the billions of dollars of Iraqi oil being extracted by big American oil firms since 2003, when the US militarily occupied the Land of the Two Rivers to kill in the next few years some two-and-a-half million people, including 500,000 thousand children who died as a result of contaminate water, because the invaders had destroyed the infrastructure.

From Yahweh to Zion

French historian explores the Jewish question

Kevin Barrett

From Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land… Clash of Civilizations by Laurent Guyénot (author),‎ Kevin J. Barrett (translator); Pub: Sifting and Winnowing Books, Lone Rock, Wisconsin, 2018, 492 pages. Price: $29.95 Pbk.

Do Muslims have a Jewish problem, or just a Zionist problem? Clearly, the invasion and colonization of Palestine by Zionists, and the establishment of a self-proclaimed Jewish State there, is the central political problem facing the Muslim Ummah. But how “Jewish” is that problem?

Some argue that Zionists are just another sub-species of European settler colonialists. According to this interpretation, the Jewish identity of the squatters in Palestine is no more relevant than the British identity of settlers in colonial Kenya and Rhodesia, the Afrikaaner identity of settlers in South Africa, or the French identity of settlers in Algeria.

But all of those settlers have either packed up and gone home, or learned to live in legal equality with their native neighbors. Only colonized Palestine persists as an ethnic-supremacist European settler colony, dominating, subjugating, and expelling natives, and imposing apartheid conditions, in the 21st Christian century/15th Islamic century. What accounts for the seemingly anachronistic persistence of Zionist colonialism in an otherwise postcolonial era?

Gilad Atzmon points out that all other settler colonizers committed their crimes while flying the flag of a European home country. Only the Zionists embarked on a settler colonial enterprise without the official sponsorship of a particular European nation. Atzmon adds that other settler colonial projects were organized around the exploitation of native labor. But the Zionists are not especially interested in exploiting Palestinian workers. They want to get rid of the Palestinians, not put them to work. So for Gilad Atzmon and his followers, the Zionist project is a peculiarly Jewish effort. We cannot understand the “Jewish State,” he says, unless we understand Jewishness.

If we follow Atzmon’s lead, we must ask: what is it about Jewish identity, as it has developed over 2,500 years of history, that has created the peculiar — and peculiarly persistent — genocide in Palestine?

To ask this question is to court hysterical opprobrium. Any less-than-favorable mention of Jews, Judaism, Jewishness, or Jewish identity in today’s mainstream Western academia, media, or book publishing world is strictly forbidden. As John Cobb, one of the world’s leading Christian theologians, says in his blurb for Laurent Guyénot’s new book From Yahweh to Zion,

…we know that there is rather tight censorship with respect to what may be said about these matters without ad hominem response. The fact of Gentile crimes against Jews throughout history is used to justify this censorship, much, but not all, of which is self-imposed. In my view, through their role in this censorship, Jews are paving the way for the rise of anti-Jewish feeling and perhaps much worse.

I agree with John Cobb that certain Jews’ heavy-handed ad hominem attacks on their critics are fueling a dangerous backlash. The alt-right includes a growing number of people who are fed up with “Jewish power’s ability to silence discussion of Jewish power,” to paraphrase Atzmon. Some of these people are angry, chauvinistic, and potentially dangerous. In the past, such anger has led to violence against innocent Jewish people. To forestall its possible recrudescence, we need to discuss the most sensitive topics — not censor them and thereby relegate them to the neo-Nazi corners of the internet.

It is in hopes of fostering a reasoned interfaith dialogue on these matters that I agreed to translate and publish Laurent Guyénot’s From Yahweh to Zion, which I believe may be the best book ever written on what used to be called “the Jewish question.” Dr. Guyénot, a PhD medievalist historian by training, explores many legitimate “Jewish questions,” including: Is Judaism/Jewishness a religion or an ethnicity? What is the Jews’ relationship to God and the prophets? What accounts for the Jews’ ability to maintain tribal cohesion over more than 2,500 years? Why have Jewish communities so often been at odds with their non-Jewish neighbors? Why have Jews been overrepresented — in many non-Jewish societies throughout history — in positions of wealth and power? Why does this overrepresentation seem to be increasing today? Why is this issue off-limits for discussion in polite company (including the mainstream media and the academy)? Is Jewish tribal cohesion an important factor in the deep xtate? And what role does the creation and endless expansion of Israel play in all of this?

Dr. Guyenot’s thesis, in a nutshell, is that a tiny Jewish elite, representing a very small fraction of Jews, has hijacked the idea of God and turned it to their own aggrandizement. Over two-and-a-half millennia, this elite has terrorized its own people to enforce their sense of separateness from other groups, garnering wealth and power in the process. Today, much of the Jewish population neither believes in God nor practices most of the prescribed Jewish rituals. But the terrorizing of Jewish people by their own leadership, the enforced sense of separation from other communities, and the amassing of wealth and power by the Jewish elite whose prime weapon is the adaptation of millennia-old brainwashing processes to today’s secular setting, all continue — with Israel replacing Yahweh as a central focus of worship.

From Yahweh to Zion is the work of a historian not just of facts, but also of ideas. The book’s exploration of 2,500 years of Jewish history will shock many believing Jews and Christians with its unfavorable interpretation of the Torah, the central Jewish holy book that Christians have included in the Old Testament. Since both traditional Jews and Christians consider the Torah/Old Testament to be inerrant scripture, Guyénot’s exposure of that book’s all-too-obvious immorality will challenge and discomfit many readers (two traditional Catholic friends and colleagues of mine have refused to review the book for that reason).

In a recent radio interview with me, Dr. Guyénot, who is a non-doctrinaire Christian, noted that Muslims are in a better scriptural position to embrace his insights than are Christians and Jews. He was alluding to the notion of tahrif: the Qur’anic doctrine, backed up by numerous hadiths, holding that the Torah (like the Zabur and Injil) was originally an authentic divine message, but that what survives today is the product of alteration and distortion by human transmitters.

Guyénot’s historical analysis suggests that the original distorters of the Torah’s divine message were what he calls the Yahwist priesthood. This priestly elite shaped the message to favor its own self-interest. They drummed up followers by casting Yahweh as a tribal god, merely one god among many, who would bring his followers good fortune if they punctiliously obeyed “his” orders (which were actually the orders of the priests themselves, and often involved plundering other tribes). Later, the priesthood learned to play the double game of making Yahweh a tribal god for the tribe, and a supposedly universal god (who still favored Jews as the Chosen Ones) for everyone else.

The Qur’an abolishes this priesthood of con-artists, and indeed all priesthoods. It corrects many of the Torah’s stories to make them moral rather than immoral or questionably moral. It restores the true picture of the one universal God. It insists we are equal before God, that the only meaningful distinction between people is in their degree of God-consciousness and goodness, not their tribal affiliation or material wealth. And it corrects the Jews’ erroneous portrait of life as a purely material this-worldly affair by insisting that the next world’s rewards are better and more enduring.

So from a Qur’anic perspective, there are indeed “Jewish problems.” Laurent Guyénot’s interpretation of how these problems have manifested in history, culminating in the present apotheosis of Zion and accompanying War on Islam, is an essential contribution to a critically-important conversation.

 

Kevin Barrett

Enlightenment Unitarianism

European Enlightenment is no stranger to extended flirtations with Islam

Kevin Barrett

Islam and the English Enlightenment 1670–1840 by Humberto Garcia; Pub: Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 2012, 368 pages. Price: $49.49 Hbk; $50.81 Amazon Kindle.

The story of How Islam Created the Modern World, as Mark Graham’s 2006 title puts it, is fairly well known. Even Eurocentric scholars admit that most of the “advances” credited to Western civilization have Islamic roots. Graham shows how the standard Western narrative of Islamic custodianship of the culture, science, and philosophy of the ancient world during Europe’s Dark Ages misses the way the Islamic world adapted and creatively developed its ancient inheritance. The European Renaissance was therefore less of a rediscovery of ancient Greco-Roman civilization than an adaptation of contemporary Islamic civilization.

But Europeans were and still are loathe to admit this. Europe’s identity was largely founded on a rejection of Islam, as reflected in the epic tales of Charlemagne, Roland, and El Cid, and in the theological fulminations of popes, prelates, and even poets (Dante Alighieri, the all-time greatest Christian poet, was a brilliant plagiarist who borrowed most of his material from Ibn ‘Arabi and the Islamic Isra’ and Mi‘raj literature — yet remained fundamentally hostile to Islam).

Despite such hostility, the European Renaissance grew out of an appropriation of Islamic civilization. Since then, the West has adapted and developed what it borrowed, just as the Islamic world has adapted and developed what it had itself inherited from ancient sources. But few realize that Islamic influences on Western culture have continued beyond the Western Medieval and Renaissance periods. One little known area of influence is Islam’s contribution to the English Enlightenment — the subject of an excellent 2012 study by Vanderbilt University professor Humberto Garcia. Thanks to Garcia’s book, I was surprised to learn that some of my Unitarian ancestors were practically crypto-Muslims, and that their Islam-inspired radical agitations were a major force driving the Enlightenment.

Growing up in a Midwestern family of lapsed Unitarians (we visited the famous Frank Lloyd Wright church in Madison, Wisconsin only occasionally) I was never taught what Unitarianism was or where it came from. As best I could discern, Unitarianism means spending one or two Sundays a year in a uniquely beautiful church, singing Kumbaya, and preaching tolerance and diversity with barely a mention of God.

Though today’s Unitarians are a harmless and somewhat ineffectual lot, supremely in tune with the dominant zeitgeist of “secular humanism on steroids,” the founders of Unitarianism were dangerous radicals who challenged the power structure of their day and the belief system on which it was based. The three central tenets of Unitarianism amounted to a harsh dismissal of the central irrational elements of Christianity. First, Unitarians insisted on the unity of God (what Muslims call tawhid) and therefore rejected the Holy Trinity. Second, they rejected the doctrine of Original Sin — the perverse idea that a perfect God would create a totally flawed, “fallen” world, and that human beings were the most horrifically flawed part of creation. Third, they emphasized the importance of using human reason in understanding scripture. In all three of these doctrines, the founding Unitarians were essentially rediscovering truths that had been clearly stated in the Qur’an more than 1,000 years earlier.

Garcia shows how these radical (and radically rational) ideas challenged the superstitions on which the European church-state power structure was built. From the divine right of kings to the trinity to the crucifixion as redemption from original sin, obscurantism and mystification were at the heart of the power process that forced people to unquestioningly accept the oppressive hierarchies under which they lived.

Unitarian ideas were so dangerous that they had to be left unpublished, softened, or disguised for public consumption, lest the person expressing the ideas find himself imprisoned or worse. Henry Stubbe’s pro-Islamic The Rise and Progress of Mahometanism, for example, was written circa 1671 and privately circulated thereafter. But it remained unpublishable until 1911, more than three centuries later (anyone publishing it would have been risking his neck). Stubbe praised Islam’s policy of tolerating and protecting religious diversity, favorably contrasting it with the repressive practices of Christendom in general and England in particular.

Stubbe’s dangerous ideas influenced several generations of English Unitarians as well as allied freethinkers, radicals, and social reformers of various stripes. In this English Enlightenment tradition, Garcia writes,

Islam is the ally of the radical Enlightenment, an underground international movement that defined its theological and political heterodoxy through borrowed legends, stories, and motifs associated with various prophetic strains of near eastern monotheism.

The Tory defenders of the status quo attacked English Enlightenment figures as “Protestant Mohametans.” In language that sounds eerily like the Islamophobia of today’s right-wing lunatic fringe, Tory pamphleteers imagined a vast international conspiracy of pro-Enlightenment Unitarian protestants working with Muslims from the Ottoman lands and Morocco with the common aim of overthrowing Christian civilization in general and the British monarchy with its state church in particular.

As Garcia shows, these fears, while grossly exaggerated, were not entirely groundless. Stubbe’s work reached an audience of English followers of the Hungarian Count Teckely, who led a Protestant Republican rebellion against the Austro-Hungarian Habsburg Empire, allying with the Ottomans and fighting alongside them in the ill-fated Battle of Vienna in 1683. Garcia writes of

English Teckelites, or radical dissenters who grounded a reformist agenda on constitutional principles that required a heretical rereading of the Islamic prophetic tradition. Stubbe promoted such an agenda during the same period that the Hungarian “malcontents” were forming an alliance with the Ottoman Porte. The Rise and Progress of Mahometanism makes three controversial claims: first, that Islam revived Arian Christianity, an anticlerical messianic Judaism that upheld Christ as a prophet and, as a result, was marginalized by the persecution of corrupt Trinitarian churches. Second, that Christianity’s decline and Islam’s rise is a legitimate response to the combined influence of Trinitarianism and the clergy, political theologies that promote despotic monarchies. And third, that Mahometanism is a natural faith worthy of admiration. The Prophet’s civic laws have accomplished in less than a century what Trinitarian Christians could not in over a millennium: his laws have anchored a state-sponsored (rather than ecclesiastical) toleration policy for all religious minorities on a solid constitutional foundation that originated with Noah’s covenant as prophetically renewed by Abraham, Moses, and Christ. Like Teckely, Stubbe treats Islamic toleration as the antidote to the religious and political contentions that have plagued Europe and England since the Protestant Reformation.

The Tory propagandists had good reason to fear that Stubbe and his school might consider allying with Muslim polities against the British crown,

Stubbe has no qualms about justifying Islam’s rise to geopolitical domination, because the true opponents to the Christian faith are the Trinitarians, “enemies to all human learning”: St. Athanasius, for his false teachings about the “son of God,” and Emperor Constantine, for rigging the Nicene Council elections in favor of the Trinitarian heresy. Stubbe argues that Islam was spread not by the sword but by the word.

Garcia’s account suggests that the real source of 17th and 18th century Islamophobia was a sort of unconscious ideological inferiority complex. Stubbe’s critique of Constantinian Christianity, the Nicene Council, and Trinitarianism was difficult to refute, so his opponents resorted to ad hominem attacks.

Stubbe’s influence sparked what Garcia calls “Islamic republicanism” — radical egalitarian opposition to the British crown, the power hierarchy atop which it sat, and the state church it had created to serve its own interests. These institutions ran on mystification whose ubiquitous injunction was to just believe and obey, don’t ever question or critique. And the supreme example of mystification in service to tyranny was the Trinity.

This underground Islamic republican movement resonated throughout the 18th and early-19th centuries, allying itself with other Enlightenment currents that culminated in the French Revolution. Naturally the Islamic Republican affinity for the French revolutionaries, and later its flirtation with a self-proclaimed Mahdi named Napoleon “Ali” Bonaparte, made the movement seem even more terrifyingly subversive to the guardians of the British establishment.

Before reading Islam and the English Enlightenment I had no idea that Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s famous poem Kublai Khan, which I encountered in English literature seminars, is a disguised disavowal of the great Romantic poet’s earlier flirtation with pro-Bonaparte Islamic republicanism! The “stately pleasure dome” of the poem, Garcia explains, represents the utopian Napoleonic Islamic republican dream that Coleridge and Robert Southey had fallen for in their youth, but grew disillusioned with in later years.

Like Coleridge and Southey, two other leading British Romantics, Percy and Mary Shelley, went through a phase of equating their radical utopian ideas with Islamic republicanism — in their case what Garcia calls “‘Gnostic’ Shi‘ite Islam.” Like Coleridge, Percy Shelley disavowed this phase of his intellectual journey in a poem that has become a canonical classic. In Garcia’s reading, Shelley’s The Revolt of Islam announces Shelley’s own revolt against his youthful Islamic republicanism. Mary Shelley, however, took a different path: Garcia reads her novel The Last Man as critical of her husband’s turning against Islamic republicanism and Islam in general.

Garcia’s book is worth reading not only as a fascinating slice of hidden history, but also as a meditation on the past with suggestive implications for the present. Today, as the Islamic Republic of Iran comes into the crosshairs of a decadent and desperate Zionist-led West, it is instructive to learn that the specter of Islamic Republicanism as a civilizational alternative has been terrorizing Western tyrants for more than three centuries.

 

Kevin Barrett

Will Madman Trump Rain “Fire and Fury” on the world?

Odds of nuclear winter better than 50/50

Kevin Barrett

Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House by Michael Wolff; Pub: Henry Holt and Company, New York, New York, 2018, 324 pages. Price: $18.00 Hbk; $13.09 Pbk; $14.00 Amazon Kindle.

The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner by Daniel Ellsberg; Pub: Bloomsbury Publishing, London, UK, 2017, 432 pages. Price: $18.89 Hbk; $9.20 Amazon Kindle.

Michael Wolff’s new book Fire and Fury takes its title from one of Donald Trump’s most infamous Twitter outbursts. On August 8th, 2017 — between the anniversaries of the US nuclear holocausts of Hiroshima (August 6th) and Nagasaki (August 9th) —Trump tweeted, “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.” Trump’s promise to counter mere verbal threats by murdering millions of people with nuclear bombs suggested to many observers that the President is, at best, monumentally careless with his tweets.

At worst, he may be stark, raving mad — as 27 mental health professionals wrote in The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President. One of the authors, Bandy Lee, an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at the Yale School of Medicine, briefed Democratic lawmakers last month on the president’s mental state. Though professional psychological and psychiatric associations have discouraged such diagnoses-at-a-distance, 70,000 self-described mental health professionals have signed a Change.org petition entitled “Trump is mentally ill and must be removed.” Indeed, one does not need to be a psychiatric professional to see signs of sociopathy, narcissism, and emotional and intellectual instability in Trump’s demeanor, words, and actions.

From a Muslim perspective, the psychiatric diagnoses ring true. Trump is an extreme embodiment of bad adab. His self-centered arrogance seems to rival that of Pharaoh, the Qur’anic villain who follows the egomaniacal path of Satan.

On January 2nd, Trump inaugurated 2018 by once again taunting Kim Jong un, “I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is much [a] bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!” Some tried to laugh it off, pointing out that Trump’s unintentional Freudian joke sounded like a line from the nuclear black comedy Dr. Strangelove. Others countered that having a deranged buffoon like Trump in command of the world’s biggest military machine may be a joke on the world, but not a terribly funny one, since the eventual punchline could be tragic beyond measure.

How did we reach this point? Wolff’s Fire and Fury offers one answer: Trump’s run for president was a publicity stunt designed to bolster his brand and enhance his riches and fame. Nobody, least of all Trump himself or his family or advisors, ever expected him to win, or thought he would be capable of governing if he did (Trump, being a quintessential narcissist, quickly changed his mind on election night when he saw that he had won; but nobody else did).

Wolff’s account mainly follows Steve Bannon’s viewpoint, according to which it was Bannon, backed by huge cash infusions from the billionaire Mercer family, who put Trump in office. Bannon’s project was, and still is, to turn America in the direction of right-wing nationalism, in the manner of a Pat Buchanan on steroids. Bannon initially saw Trump as a useful idiot. But as Trump’s presidency underwent slow-motion implosion during its first year, with Bannon’s America-first project taking a back seat to the internationalist Zionist bankster machinations of former Goldman Sachs honcho Steven Mnuchin and Kissinger-Netanyahu protégé Jared Kushner, Bannon jumped ship, told all to Wolff, and broke decisively with Trump.

All this gossip about America’s unlikely, absurd, and quite possibly deranged President is as gripping and entertaining (at least until the novelty wears off) as it is horrifying. But in the end, it is not Wolff’s book that we need to read to understand our predicament. Daniel Ellsberg’s The Doomsday Machine is far more edifying, and in the long run, more important.

Ellsberg is a former nuclear war planner for the RAND Corporation who risked life in prison by leaking the Pentagon Papers in hopes of stopping America’s genocidal assault on Vietnam. The Doomsday Machine makes a strong case that the problem is not that we have a madman president. The real dilemma, according to Ellsberg, is much worse than that: we have a nuclear war system in place which is, for all practical purposes, in the hands of omnicidal lunatics — and has been for more than 70 years.

It isn’t that the individuals who run America’s nuclear war system are all as crazy and ignorant as Trump. As individuals, most of them are quite sane, not to mention highly intelligent, like the young Dan Ellsberg when he worked for RAND. Ellsberg opens The Doomsday Machine with a quote from Nietzsche, “Madness in individuals is something rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs, it is the rule.” The nuclear command and control systems of our epoch illustrate the point to perfection.

As Ellsberg makes clear, it is only through the grace of Allah (swt) that all human life and all large animal life on earth, or virtually all of it, has not yet been extinguished by these nuclear madmen. For the nuclear war fighting plans and scenarios of the US, and presumably Russia as well, seemingly guarantee that such a thing will happen, probably sooner rather than later.

Two key points emerge from Ellsberg’s book. First, the chances of a major nuclear war between the superpowers are shockingly high. Repeatedly, such a war has been narrowly and improbably averted. If a professional oddsmaker were fully informed about the issue, he would probably conclude that the chances of a full-scale nuclear war breaking out are about 5%/year or 50/50 per decade (or per two decades if the oddsmaker dons rose-colored glasses). That means that during the 70-year nuclear superpower standoff, we have flipped the coin three to five times, and gotten lucky every time. In other words, we just played Russian roulette, holding a gun to the head of the world, with five bullets in the chamber (actually the odds are worse than that, but you get the drift). Absent continual miraculous divine intervention, we are eventually going to get the malhamah that Shaykh Imran Hosein and others claim is foretold in scripture. Or, paraphrasing Ibsen, “If a gun is on the mantle in the first act, it must go off in the third.”

The second key point is that the looming malhamah, as Imran Hosein says, is likely to kill all or nearly all of the world’s population. Ellsberg points out that even today, many decades after the discovery of the planet-killing “nuclear winter” that would follow even a relatively small nuclear war between superpowers, nuclear war planners continue to work toward “limited” nuclear wars under the delusional assumption that “only” tens or hundreds of millions of people would die, rather than the full seven billion (plus or minus a few miserable cannibalistic survivors). For the truth, according to climate scientists, is that even an improbably minuscule nuclear exchange of 100 small nuclear bombs (and no big ones) would put enough smoke into the atmosphere to block incoming sunlight planet-wide for more than a decade, plunging the earth into “nuclear winter” and completely ending agriculture. The result would be that all of earth’s population, except perhaps for a few warrior cannibals, would die of starvation.

The Qur’an tells us “…if anyone kills a human being — unless it be [in punishment] for murder or for spreading corruption on earth — it shall be as though he had killed all mankind; whereas, if anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he had saved the lives of all mankind” (5:32). Allah (swt) thus emphasizes the importance of protecting human life, showing the immense consequences of even one unjust killing. And yet the nuclear war planners calmly plot the murder of the whole of mankind, all the while deluding themselves into thinking they are behaving acceptably by imagining that they are “only” plotting the murder of tens or hundreds of millions.

The upshot is that, yes, Trump may be an ignorant, unstable, narcissistic nutjob. But the menace of Trump pales in comparison to that of the criminally-insane nuclear command and control system, which is built and maintained by thousands of individually sane people, and tolerated by 300 million seemingly normal Americans.

Dr. Kevin Barrett is a US-based journalist, commentator, and radio broadcaster. He hosts the TruthJihad radio program as well as manages the VeteransToday website.

 

9/11 was planned in Tel Aviv and Washington, not in Kabul: Scholar

US officials assert that the attacks were carried out by 19 al-Qaeda
terrorists but many experts have raised questions about the official account.

The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were not planned and directed from Afghanistan, as US President Donald Trump has claimed; rather, they were orchestrated by certain elements in Washington, DC and Tel Aviv, says Dr. Kevin Barrett, an American academic who has been studying the events of 9/11 since late 2003.

“[The] Zionist coup d'etat of 9/11 was done by the combination of Israelis and neo-conservative Americans along with hard-line right-wingers in the American military and the intelligence establishment who pulled off this coup d'etat in America,” Dr. Barrett said.

Dr. Barrett, a founding member of the Scientific Panel for the Investigation of 9/11, made the remarks in an interview with Press TV on Tuesday while commenting on a statement Trump made on Monday during his policy speech about Afghanistan.

Speaking from Fort Myer, Virginia, Trump unveiled his much-anticipated agenda for Afghanistan.

During his speech, Trump said, “The consequences of a rapid exit [from Afghanistan] are both predictable and unacceptable. 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in our history, was planned and directed from Afghanistan because that country was ruled by a government that gave comfort and shelter to terrorists. A hasty withdrawal would create a vacuum that terrorists, including ISIS and al Qaeda, would instantly fill, just as happened before September 11th.”

‘Trump sending US to graveyard of empires’

“Donald Trump has just committed the United States to an endless quagmire in Afghanistan -- the graveyard of empires. And Trump’s rationale is the same one that has been in force for the past sixteen years which is that Afghanistan was somehow responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001,” Dr. Barrett said.

“It is amazing how this gift of 9/11 keeps on giving. And Trump is the last person one would have normally expected to do this,” he stated.

“When Trump was running for office, he was skeptical about foreign wars, open-ended engagements. He recognized that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have destroyed America’s economy and infrastructure,” he said.

PressTV- ‘Trump could be killed for 9/11 truth’

An American scholar says the full truth about the 9/11 coup d’état is probably too politically explosive for Donald Trump to ever tell.

‘Trump a 9/11 skeptic’

“And what’s more, Trump is also a 9/11 skeptic. On September 11th itself Trump immediately said that there must have been explosives used. He said there is no way that a plane could possibly take down these buildings. And he was right, as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have proven. Thousands of architects and engineers are on record having put their careers and livelihoods and reputations on the line to state that what happened to the three skyscrapers, including the Building 7, on 9/11, was clearly controlled demolition” Dr. Barrett said.

“So the official narratives of hijacking by people who were supposedly being commanded by a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan are utterly ludicrous and have been fully disproven on hundreds and hundreds of grounds,” he stated.

“And now Donald Trump, who has expressed skepticism about all of this in the past, and who drove (Jeb) Bush out of the presidential nomination by attacking (George W.) Bush, his brother, as the likely culprit or at least someone who is responsible for 9/11—now Trump who we all hoped might be an ‘irresponsible’ truth teller, that is, someone who would tell the incredibly subversive truth about what has really happened to America since the false flag attack of September 11th—all those hopes are now dashed,” he noted.

‘Trump under control of Deep State’

Dr. Barrett said now “Trump is clearly under the control of the elements of the Deep State that murdered three thousand Americans in an act of high treason on September 11, 2001.”

“So those of us who care about the truth and care about the core values that made America great in the first place are now going to have to view Trump as well as the rest of the American leadership as treasonous enemies,” he concluded.

White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card whispers into the ear of President George W. Bush to give him word of the plane crashes at the World Trade Center, during a visit to the Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida, on September 11, 2001. (Photo by AP)

The September, 11, 2001 attacks, also known as the 9/11 attacks, were a series of strikes in the US which killed nearly 3,000 people and caused about $10 billion worth of property and infrastructure damage.

US officials assert that the attacks were carried out by 19 al-Qaeda terrorists but many experts have raised questions about the official account.

They believe that rogue elements within the US government, such as former Vice President Dick Cheney, orchestrated or at least encouraged the 9/11 attacks in order to accelerate the US war machine and advance the Zionist agenda.

SAUDI ARABIA IS RUN BY CORRUPT AND DESPOTIC DONMEH JEWISH FAMILY

PRESS TV HAS CONDUCTED AN INTERVIEW WITH KEVIN BARRETT, 

THE EDITOR OF VETERANS TODAY, TO ASK HIS TAKE ON 

EXECUTION OF THE PROMINENT SAUDI SHIA CLERIC 

NIMR AL-NIMR.

The following is a rough transcription of the interview.

Press TV: It seems that Saudi Arabia can’t tolerate even peaceful means of trying to reform and bring about human rights reform. Your take on this. Tell me the reason you think that this is happening now?

Barrett: Well, I guess we all are shocked and horrified by this but we should not be that surprised. Saudi Arabia is run by one of the most corrupt and despotic families in the history of the world. These are people who will stop at nothing to try to preserve their billions and billions of dollars they have stolen from the people of Arabia and deposit it in not just Swiss bank accounts but in the Western petro dollar money system. They are propping up the Zionist-dominated money system that rules the West on behalf of the criminal cartel.

These people are organized crime figures and calling it Saudi Arabia is an insult to the people of Arabia that would be like naming the United States after its ruling crime family and calling it Bushy America. Here in the United States unfortunately the media is not telling the full truth about the state of affairs in Saudi Arabia. The reports that we are getting on the execution of Sheikh Nimr and 47 people [in] total do not even mention that they are being beheaded. We get nothing but non-stop propaganda about the so-called Islamic State (Daesh) beheading people and in fact we have lots of fake beheading videos produced by … the so-called SITE intelligence group and Israeli front whipping up American hatred against all Muslims.

Americans are being brain-washed by their media to think that these people who chop off heads are representatives of all Muslims. But then when the Saudis do it and of course they are the ones who’ve set the tone for so-called Islamic states or Daesh who are essentially taking the same extremist Wahhabi Takfiri ideology from the Saudi ruling family, we do not hear about it. They are covering up.

If you look at the mainstream stories on this they are not even mentioning much less emphasizing this lured aspect that Saudi Arabia loves to behead people. The main public square in Riyadh is called Chop Chop Square where they are constantly beheading people and nobody in the United States even knows this. All we hear is Israeli propaganda that it is Muslims who do this because the Saudi- sponsor terrorists of Daesh are running around, beheading people.

It is time for the world to wake up and recognize that this regime in Saudi Arabia needs to go. They are one of the true heads of the Zionist Takfiri monster that is dominating the Middle East and I think that it should be clear to all Muslims and not just Shia Muslims. I am not Shia. I am a Muslim form the Moroccan school of Islam which is basically classified as Sunni. But all of us need to see that there is a huge problem with this ruling family in Saudi Arabia and they are the ones who are spreading the sectarian strife and civil war throughout the region.

Saudi Arabia’s approach to terrorism, hypocritical

File photo shows Saudi-backed militants in Syria.

By Dr. Kevin Barrett

On Friday, the government of Saudi Arabia listed five groups as "terrorist organizations." Two of those groups – Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) – actually are terrorist organizations. They have engaged in a policy of indiscriminate killing, including targeting civilians, in Syria.

The odd thing is that the Saudi government has long been the main supporter of both groups! 

Now, by royal decree, any Saudi citizen fighting abroad must return within two weeks, on pain of imprisonment. And any member of Jabhat al-Nusra or ISIL faces 20 years in prison.

The first Saudi who ought to go to prison is Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, former head of Saudi Intelligence "Bandar Bush," as he is affectionately known in American organized crime circles, ran the main conduit of arms to the terrorists until he was relieved of his Syria duties two weeks ago.

Bandar should be arrested and charged in connection with the false-flag chemical weapons attack in al-Ghouta last August. The whole Obama Administration, along with several top Israeli leaders, should be also arrested as suspected accessories.

But the Saudi government is hardly in a position to prosecute terrorists. If laws against terrorism were enforced in the kingdom, the whole Saudi elite would have to go to jail.

Come to think of it, that might not be such a bad idea.

The new Saudi "anti-terror" move is a virtual admission of defeat in Syria. By firing Bandar, and then outlawing Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIL, the Saudis apparently have given up on overthrowing the Syrian government. Saudi withdrawal from Syria may help open the door for a diplomatic solution.

But will the Saudis really stop funding Syrian terrorists? Or is the new Saudi "war on terror" merely cosmetic?

One indication that the new Saudi "anti-terror" policy is phony: Three of the alleged "terrorist" organizations banned by the Saudis are not really terrorists at all.

There is no evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi Hizbollah, or the Yemeni Houthis have a policy of indiscriminate violence or attacks on civilians. The Saudi claim that these groups are "terrorists" is a self-serving lie.

Saudi Hizbollah has been blamed for attacks on property and on occupation forces. But even if these disputed claims are true, it has never engaged in indiscriminate attacks on civilians.

The Houthis in Yemen, likewise, do not engage in indiscriminate violence or attacks on civilians. The Takfiris they oppose, not the Houthis themselves, deserve the terrorist label.

But of all the hypocritical aspects of Saudi Arabia's anti-terror proclamation, the most outrageous is the claim that the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is a terrorist group. The MB, by far the biggest international Islamic organization, does not even have an armed militia. Since the 1970s, its official policy has been strictly non-violent activism. Even the MB's Western enemies, who consider virtually all Muslims as likely terrorists, concede that the Brotherhood has followed a policy of non-violence for decades.

Tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of peaceful Muslim Brotherhood activists have disappeared and been tortured in Egypt during the decades of vicious repression by the Zionist-backed Mubarak and al-Sisi dictatorships.

Will Saudi Arabia follow Egypt's lead and begin disappearing and torturing Muslim Brotherhood activists and intellectuals?

The new wave of persecution should concentrate the minds of MB leaders. They ought to reconsider the organization's alliances and methods.

While ostensibly non-sectarian and pan-Islamic, the Muslim Brotherhood has been strongly influenced by Salafism, a puritanical, intolerant, politically-quietist strain of Islam. Saudi money has promoted Salafism in the MB. Mohamed Morsi, Egypt's first-ever democratically-elected president and still its legitimate leader, was hamstrung by the need to placate the Saudi-funded Egyptian Salafis.

Now that Saudi Arabia is turning against the MB, perhaps the Brotherhood will escape the Salafi influence and become a genuine brotherhood of all Muslims – and a promoter of brotherhood between Muslims and all mankind. A good first step would be for the MB to launch a global campaign against sectarian violence. By demonstrating and speaking out against sectarian violence not just in Syria, but also in Yemen, Iraq, Nigeria, Myanmar, and elsewhere – and intensifying its opposition to the genocidal persecution of non-Zionist people in Palestine – the MB could gain support from progressive forces around the world.

The MB needs to learn how to build bridges among people of good will, beginning with Muslims of different orientations, and then reaching out to include justice-seeking non-Muslims. What Gandhi said of "Western Civilization" is also true of Muslim Brotherhood: It would be a good idea.

The MB should intensify its dedication to social justice, and reconsider its traditional policy of cooperation with oppressors – not just Saudis but also Western governments. The Saudis and the West are in bed with the Zionists. The MB needs to preserve its integrity and independence; it must not allow itself to be bought.

The ridiculous Saudi assertion that the MB is a "terrorist" group could turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to the Brotherhood. It could wean the group of Saudi government money and influence once and for all.

The Saudi turn against the MB could create a new set of alliances in the Middle East. On one side, the house of Zionism, Takfiri fanaticism, social injustice, dictatorship, and submission to empire: Israel, Saudi Arabia, and their acolytes. On the other side, the house of anti-Zionism, anti-imperialism, democracy, social justice, and inclusive Islam: Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, a more inclusive Muslim Brotherhood...a newer and broader "Axis of Resistance" that could spread across the region as it gradually democratizes and wins genuine independence.

When that happens, the Saudi and Zionist regimes will be tossed in the proverbial dustbin of history, and remembered as the two biggest sources of terrorism in the region since the Mongol invasion.

KB/SS

Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, is one of America's best-known critics of the War on Terror. Dr. Barrett has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications. Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin, where he ran for Congress in 2008. He is the co-founder of the Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance, and author of the books Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie (2007) and Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters (2009).