Turkish Forum » Regions

In the Land of Blood and Honey: a movie about Bosnian War

sky1blue — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 13:30:56 +0000

by John Hiscock

Angelina Jolie’s first film as a director, In the Land of Blood and Honey, is a horrific tale set during the Bosnian conflict. She talks to John Hiscock about the emotional cost of making it.

Angelina Jolie’s first film as a director is definitely not for kids. She had to ban her and Brad Pitt’s six children from the Budapest set of In the Land of Blood and Honey whenever she was filming brutal and harrowing scenes, which was much of the time.

But, whenever there was a break in filming, the children, aged between two and 10, were summoned to bring fun and laughter to the cast and crew and provide a welcome respite from the grim and horrific acts being depicted for the cameras.

“They liked to visit the set and play in the fake snow, but there were many days when they couldn’t come because we were filming scenes that weren’t appropriate for children,” she says. “But, whenever I called ‘cut’ and we had a break, the kids would come and play soccer with the cast, and we’d all laugh because they brought levity and love to something that was so dark. I was always so happy to see them I probably smothered them with love because of the nature of the subject matter I was dealing with.”

The subject matter is a vivid and graphically explicit look at the fratricidal Bosnian war of the 1990s, which pitted Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia against each other along ethnic and religious lines, leaving an estimated 100,000 people dead, 50,000 women raped and introduced the term “ethnic cleansing” to the lexicon of war.

The movie, filmed in 42 days for less than £10 million, was written by Jolie who also produced as well as directed.

“I wanted to do this film because of what I’d witnessed in the past 10 years in travelling to all parts of the world. And the more I started to read and research about the former Yugoslavia, the more I was emotionally affected and ashamed at myself for knowing so little about it.”

Apart from reading everything she could find, she also consulted Richard C Holbrooke, the architect of the Dayton accords that ended the conflict in December 1995 (who died in December 2010), Gen Wesley Clark, the Nato commander, as well as correspondents who covered the war and some of the victims and survivors.

Once she started writing, it took her a month to craft the story of Ajla, a Bosnian Muslim woman, and Danijel, a Serbian police officer, who meet in Sarajevo just before the war starts and are reunited when she is sent to one of the notorious “rape camps” where he is in charge.

Jolie decided to model her directing techniques on those of Clint Eastwood, who had directed her to an Oscar nomination in 2008’s Changeling.

“I had a great experience with him, and his sets are like family,” she says. “He works with good people. You have to be talented, but at heart you have to be a good person. There are no egos and everybody respects each other and works together. He’s so fast and economical, which I had to be because we had so very little money and had to move very fast.”

Her actors are from the former Yugoslavia, a mix of Serbs, Muslims and Croats, many of whom had lost family members or were wounded during the war. “It was a particularly hard film because I was asking people to recreate things they actually lived through and do brutal things to each other. As rough as we depicted the violence against women, it was really a thousand times worse.

“On the first day of filming, we shot a mass rape scene, and it was the first time these people from different sides of the conflict were in the same space and working together. I thought, ‘This is either going to bring about great tension and we’re going to have a very difficult morning, or it’s going to do something else.’

“Right after I called ‘cut’, the actor picked the actress up, gave her the biggest hug and brushed all the snow off her, and all the other officers picked up the women’s clothes and re-dressed them and apologised and brought them tea. By lunchtime, people were friendly and kind to each other, so there was a lot of love in the film. But there was a strong intention on my part to make it hard to watch because I wanted people to sit for two hours and be thinking, ‘Please stop this, somebody intervene.’ We made it difficult to watch on purpose.” In a bizarre convergence of Hollywood glamour and the horrors of war, we are talking in the comfort of a Beverly Hills hotel suite. She is well aware that her star status not only ensured the film could be made but is also the reason for the publicity it is generating and the discussion of the issues it raises, including rape as a war crime and the ethics of international intervention.

“How can there be such violence against women? How can the international community turn its back and allow these kind of atrocities?” she says. “There is no sane answer and it makes absolutely no sense.”

Her and Brad Pitt’s celebrity has helped in her role as a United Nations Goodwill Ambassador and brought attention to the humanitarian causes they support with both time and money. For the past decade, in between making movies, they have travelled the world, visiting refugee camps, building schools and hospitals and donating money where it is needed.

“Here in Hollywood, people get so stressed about things that are simply not the important things in life. So I am very grateful that years ago I was put in the middle of a conflict zone, where I came face to face with what is really happening in the world.

“I love being an actor, and I appreciate and have fun with all the blessings I’ve got from it, but it is a very small part of what is happening around the world. If I wasn’t somehow able to bring attention to issues when I go to other countries, it would weigh on me heavily. I have moments when I burst out crying and I don’t know why, and sometimes I can’t sleep at nights, but at least I can feel I can do something to be part of the solution.”

She is still basking in the positive reactions to a screening of In the Land of Blood and Honey, which she had just hosted in Sarajevo for representatives of war victims’ associations. Their original objections to her story of love between a Serb man and a Muslim woman had forced her to shoot most of the film in Hungary, with only some of the exterior scenes in Bosnia. But, she says, they were pleased with the finished product.

“Sensitivities are still running high, and I have a deep sympathy for people who were nervous, but I asked that people give us the chance to tell the story, and the actors would not have been a part of it if it wasn’t something that was right and correct.”

Jolie, 36, is keen to write and direct another movie and has already started working on a script about Afghanistan. “I loved the experience of directing, and I’d like to do it again. But I’m not yet confident that I’m good at it.”

3th February 2012

The Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/starsandstories/9057306/Angelina-Jolie-interview-I-couldnt-allow-my-kids-on-set.html

Is Israel on the road to “self-destruction”?

Haluk Demirbag — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:41:44 +0000

One very well informed and courageous Israeli who thinks the answer is “Yes” is Merav Michaeli, a radio and television presenter who also writes for Ha’aretz. She is completely without fear when it comes to telling it like it is. On 2 January this year, for example, she wrote: “The Israeli government doesn’t want peace. There’s nothing new in that. It has been the proven way since the establishment of the state.”

The headline over her latest article is Israel’s never-ending Holocaust. One of her main points is that Israel has never confronted the trauma of the Nazi holocaust and has “turned it into a placard in the service of the national trauma, to reinforce the constant existential fear and the aggressiveness that comes with it.”

Because what she wrote is so important, and in my view ought to be read by all peoples of all faiths everywhere who want to understand why the Zionist state is what it is, I am going to quote her at some length.

She wrote:

The Holocaust is the primary way Israel defines itself. And that definition is narrow and ailing in the extreme, because the Holocaust is remembered only in a very specific way, as are its lessons. It has long been used to justify the existence and the necessity of the state, and has been mentioned in the same breath as proof that the state is under a never-ending existential threat.

The Holocaust is the sole prism through which our leadership, followed by society at large, examines every situation. This prism distorts reality and leads inexorably to a forgone conclusion… that all our lives are simply one long Shoah (experience of persecution and extermination – my amplification not Merav’s).

The ‘Hitlers’ are always there: Just a week ago, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said for the nth time that there is no shortage of those who want to exterminate us completely. In other words, there is no lack of reasons to continue to reinforce the fear of the Holocaust – which, according to his father, historian Benzion Netanyahu, has never ended.

So it is that we don’t have any rivals, adversaries or even enemies. Only Hitlers. This is how the Holocaust is taught in school, this how it is that Israeli students are taken to visit death camps – and how it came to be that, as Ha’aretz reported on Friday, just 2 percent of Israeli youth feel committed to democratic principles after studying the Holocaust… That’s the way it is with traumas. Because of our human limitations, a trauma that is not dealt with makes us constantly see yet another trauma approaching – even when whatever is coming has no connection to the previous trauma and may even be a good thing. Trauma leads to belligerence and a strong tendency to wreak havoc on one’s surroundings, but first and foremost on oneself.

What we consider rational is actually a frightened, defensive, aggressive pattern. Our current leaders have made Israeli Judaism just a post-traumatic syndrome, while they lead us to self-destruction.

I imagine that most if not all Arabs and other Muslims everywhere would welcome the prospect of Israel self-destructing, but in my Gentile view it is not actually a prospect to be welcomed. Why not?

If there comes a time when it seemed to them that the Zionist state’s self-destruction was imminent, Israel’s leaders would respond in the same way as they would if their state was in danger of being defeated on the battlefield. As readers of my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews know, that response was put into words by Golda Meir in the course of one of my BBC Panorama interviews with her when she was prime minister. In a doomsday situation, she said, Israel “would be prepared to take the region down with it.”

The question arising is something like this. Is there any power on Planet Earth that could assist Israeli Jews to save themselves from themselves – perhaps I should say save themselves from their deluded leaders?

The more I think about this question, the more I am convinced that there is only one power that could do it – the Jews of the world. But that must be the subject of another post and I will welcome thoughts from others before I write it.

www.alanhart.net, January 30, 2012

Tunisian Jews Reject Calls to Leave

Haluk Demirbag — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 05:17:02 +0000

In the wake of the Arab Uprising, which began a year ago in Tunisia, an Israeli government minister said that for their own safety all of Tunisia’s remaining Jews should move to Israel.

Hundreds of thousands of Sephardi Jews used to live across North Africa and the Middle East, before the creation of Israel in 1948.

But the suggestion that the small communities that remain should pack up and leave is being rejected, by many of the Jews themselves.

Turkey needs to devise a 2015 strategy

Mehmet Fatih — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:18:51 +0000

The recent step by France with respect to the 1915 incidents represents a great victory for the Armenians before 2015, the 100th anniversary of the incidents.

The rising image of France, which kept its promises to the Armenians, may appeal to the leaders of other countries where the Armenian diaspora has been active. Leaders who exerted efforts to attract the support of Armenians in elections have more often than not changed their attitude and stance after the elections; in most cases, they failed to keep the promises they made during their election campaigns. This situation has now been changed.

Yerevan welcomed the French move, as evidenced by joyous demonstrations held around the French Embassy by Armenians and political party representatives. In particular, old ladies hugged the French diplomats and officers there and sobbed; this sends a clear message and signal as to what sort of sensitivities should be held on the matter. Turkey, which failed to appreciate and notice the growing French investments in Armenia following an important visit by Nicolas Sarkozy to Yerevan in October, was shocked by the French move and started new discussions on French policy.

As these discussions now focus on what kind of attitude Turkey should adopt vis-à-vis France, the Armenian side refers to this ironic situation as surprising; it seems Turkey has been ignoring the main points — that is to say, the 1915 and Armenian issues. Armenian experts note that Turkey should develop dialogue with Armenia immediately and recall that they do not understand why Turkey is focusing on potential measures against France.

The Armenian authorities last year set up an international commission for the remembrance and commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide; the commission has so far engaged in lobbying activities and carried out a number of studies as well as completed scientific research concerning 2015. Likewise, Armenia has intensified its ties with the diaspora; to this end, they held meetings where they decided to generate policies focusing on the link between Armenia, the diaspora and Nagorno-Karabakh.

In fall 2011, at the Pan-Armenian Congress, where a number of Armenians from different countries participated and which focused on the intensification of ties with the diaspora, domestic and international developments were discussed; the congress also discussed several matters on youth, language and education, preparations towards the 100th anniversary of the genocide and improvement of relations with the diaspora.

‘The diaspora should be fed by the homeland’

President Serzh Sarksyan, who said, “Our formulation is clear: We want the maximum of the homeland opportunities for the diaspora and the maximum of the diaspora opportunities for the homeland,” stated the need for the diaspora and the importance attached to it at the Pan-Armenian Congress as follows: “The diaspora and the homeland should ensure their mutual survival. The diaspora should be fed by the homeland in political, cultural, scientific, health and sports terms; and the homeland should also be fed by the diaspora as well.”

The gains of Armenia and the diaspora may of course be linked to the decision of the Jewish lobby in the West to no longer support Turkey. However, this could only have a limited impact based on the political reflex considering the intricate web of relations in the Caucasus, particularly along the Israel-Azerbaijan and Iran axis. In addition, some unexpected developments may take place with regard to the Armenian genocide up until2015. Inthis case, Turkey needs to devise a short-term strategy on 2015 and drop its longstanding traditional and routine policies. This strategy should complement the normalization process with Armenia and focus on existing problems rather than imitating the steps of the diaspora. Turkey should realize that the publication of some books in response to thousands of scholarly accounts on the historical aspect of the problem will not do anything influential; instead, focusing on public diplomacy may alleviate the fever. Considering that it is not possible to train genocide experts in a very short time, it will be appropriate to rely on civilian democracy and the improvement of economic relations.

Institutions which have firsthand ties with Armenia should be supported to create a common bridge in Turkey. This should be considered in reference to additional efforts on educational, economic, cultural and political relations. As part of bilateral educational cooperation, comprehensive programs may be developed to attract students in Turkish studies departments in Armenia and Armenian youngsters who speak the Turkish language. The Yunus Emre Institute has been pursuing a similar strategy in a number of countries.

In order to improve commercial ties with Armenia, the relevant think tanks focusing on economic affairs might be supported to resolve the problems in bilateral commercial relations through joint action. Considering that 70 percent of the Armenian people support this type of action, it becomes apparent that immediate steps should be taken on this matter. In cultural terms, an approach of civilian diplomacy by which both sides would recognize each other should be advanced. The parties and people who have never seen an Armenian or a Turk in their whole life should be brought together. Political relations will represent the final stage of this process, where Turkish foreign policy will secure great achievements in this conflict-torn region.

By approaches that consider the sensitivities and demands of the Armenian side without turning a blind eye to the reality and truth, Turkey may gain a more prestigious place in the eyes of the Armenian people than the one France has gained and facilitate the resolution of common problems. An Armenia which has to buy agricultural devices from Belarus will be able to have the chance of purchasing its needs from Turkey after the resolution of its problems. If reconciliation is desired, increased attention should be paid to the process of normalization.

Mehmet Fatih ÖZTARSU – Today’s Zaman

http://www.todayszaman.com/news-270139-turkey-needs-to-devise-a-2015-strategyby-mehmet-fatih-oztarsu*.html

Report: Turkey refuses to host Hamas HQ

aira — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 07:38:34 +0000

Ankara dismisses reports suggesting Hamas Politburo Chief Khaled Mashaal will set up movement’s new headquarters in Turkey; further denies pledging $300M in aid funds to Hamas

Elior Levy

Published: 01.30.12, 22:43 / Israel News

Ankara will not allow Khaled Mashaal to relocate Hamas’ Politburo to Turkey, the Turkish website Today’s Zaman reported on Monday.

According to the report, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arınc said that Meshaal’s stay in Turkey was “out of question.”

Armenian-Nazi Collaboration

sky1blue — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:42:12 +0000

Armenian-Nazi Collaboration

Yet another historical fact: a fact that for years has been deliberately forgotten, concealed, and wiped from memory – the fact of Armenian-Nazi collaboration.

A magazine called Mitteilungsblatt der Deutsch-Armenischen Gesselschaft is the clearest and most definite proof of this collaboration. The magazine was first published in Berlin in 1938 during Nazi rule of Germany and continued publication until the end of 1944. Even the name of the magazine, which implies a declaration of Armenian-Nazi cooperation, is attention-getting. This magazine, every issue of which proves the collaboration, is historically important as documentary evidence. It is a heap of writing that should be an admonition to world opinion and to all mankind.

To give specific examples of actions; In May 1935 the Armenians of Bucharest attacked the Jews of that city, while the Greeks of Salonika attacked the Jews in the August of the same year. During World War II, Armenian volunteers, under the wings of Hitler’s Germany, were used in rounding up Jews and other ’’undesirables’’ destined for the Nazi concentration camps. The Armenians also published a German-language magazine, with fascist and anti-Semitic tendencies, supporting Nazi doctrines directed to the extermination of ’inferior’ races [1].

This is confirmed by Armenophil Christopher J. Walker, who admits that the Armenians collaborated with the Nazis. According to him, members of the Dashnak Party, then living in the occupied areas, including a number of prominent persons, entertained pro-Axis sympathies. A report in an American magazine went so far as to claim that the Nazis had picked on the Dashnaktsutiun to do fifth- column work, promising the party an autonomous state for its cooperation. Walker goes on to claim that relations between the Nazis and the Dashnaks living in the occupied areas were close and active. On 30 December 1941 an Armenian battalion was formed by a decision of the Army Command (Wehrmacht), known as the ’Armenian 812th Battalion’. It was commanded by Dro, and was made up of a small number of committed recruits, and a larger number of Armenians. Early on, the total number of recruits was 8,000; this number later grew to 30,000. The 812th Battalion was operational in Crimea and the North Caucasus.(These are the dates and numbers given by Walker).

A year later, on 15 December 1942, an Armenian National Council was granted official recognition by Alfred Rosenberg, the German Minister of the occupied areas. The Council’s president was Professor Ardashes Abeghian, its vice-president Abraham Giulkhandanian, and it numbered among its members Nzhdeh and Vahan Papazian. From that date until the end of 1944 it published a weekly journal, Armenien, edited by Viken Shant (the son of Levon), who also broadcast on Radio Berlin. The whole idea was to prove to the Germans that the Armenians were ’Aryans’. With the aid of Dr. Paul Rohrbach they seemed to have achieved this as the Nazis did not persecute the Armenians in the occupied lands [2].

“Members of the Dashnak party living in the occupied areas, including a number of names famous from the period of the republic, adopted a pro-Nazi stance.“ [3]

“Wholly opportunistic the Armenians have been variously pro-Nazi, pro-Russia, pro-Soviet Armenia, pro-Arab, pro-Jewish, as well as anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist, anti-Communist, and anti-Soviet – whichever was expedient.“ [4]

The Nazi-Armenian genocide of Jews 1935-1945

by Samuel A. Weems

There was a funeral a few weeks ago in Vienna, Austria. Two small black urns were buried containing the brains and a few remains of 4-year old Annemarie Danner and 18-month old Gerhard Zeketner. During World War II these were two of the more than 600 children the Nazis proclaimed “worthless lives.” These children were taken to Vienna’s Am Stein Hospital to be murdered and their bodies used for medical research.

Between 1935 and 1945, in the name of medical science and research, the Nazis murdered more than 75,000 individuals, including 5,000 children across Europe, in their quest to create a racial/ethnic pure state. These acts of terror and cruelty were in addition to what the Nazis did at their many death camps where Jews were exterminated.

The term “genocide” was invented and created in 1944 to describe all the many different acts of murder the Nazis used in their attempt to exterminate the entire Jewish race. Annemarie Danner and Gerhard Zeketner are but two of the individual lives the Nazis stamped out. Armenians today are attempting to “steal” the term genocide by making the fake claim that the Turks massacred 1.5 million of their people in 1915. The undisputed hard evidence is that this tall tale was nothing more than the figment of the imagination of a high priest of the one and only state Armenian church. The priest’s motive for making up and telling this horrible lie was his attempt to get a foreign government to come and help the Armenians obtain someone else’s homes and land for free. This great lie is the foundation upon which the Armenian government has established its multi billion dollar fake “genocide industry.” The Armenians have been operating on this great lie since 1918. Armenia operates their “genocide industry” with great success in today’s world even if they do operate on fraud and deceit.

The truth is the Ottoman Turks did only one thing which had good cause for doing so, but gave the Armenians a chance to claim that there was a massacre going on. That single act was to ask the Armenian Church to help them stop their congregations’ nightly terrorist acts against the Ottoman military supply lines. The Russians had invaded the Ottoman Empire and the Armenians in the eastern part of the country had joined the Russians. The Armenian Church refused to help the Ottoman government and state officials responded by saying they would themselves have to remove all Armenians from behind their army lines.

DRO’s 20,000 Armenian-Nazis

Thereafter, the Ottoman government did remove all the Armenians who were doing such harm to their military forces. The United States of America has done exactly the same thing during World War II. Several Americans are known to have seen Armenians being alive and leaving the combat zone even though the Armenian church claims they were all murdered.

At no time did the Ottoman Turks exterminate children for medical research as the Nazis did between 1935—1945. What makes such acts of Nazi terrorism worse is the fact they did not act alone in their attempts to create an ethnic/racial pure state. Consider the fact that more than 100,000 Armenians volunteered for Nazi military service and took an active part in the Nazi ethnic/racial cleansing campaigns. For ten long years Armenians took part in exterminating not only Jews but also children such as Annemarie Danner and Gerhard Zeketner.

During World War II Armenians learned well the art of racial/ethnic cleansing from their Nazi partners in crime. Today. Armenia has ethnically/racially cleansed their tiny state so successfully that 94.8% of their population is now ethnically pure Armenian. The Armenians have ethnically/racially cleansed their tiny state of what they consider their “undesirables” much like they helped the Nazis do between 1935/1945. Jews, Muslims, and Christians of other faiths other than the state owned and approved church have either been murdered or forced out of Armenia.

Consider the fact of how Armenia today continues to honor the Nazis. The Armenian Nazi General Dro commanded the 20,000 Armenian-Nazi 812th Battalion during World War II. After the war, even though serving the Nazis, Armenian Dro talked his way into the United States of America where he remained until his death. Just last year Armenians dug him up and took his body back to Armenia where he was reburied with full military and state honors. The Armenian American colony raised several hundred thousand dollars to help fund a youth leadership institute to honor this Armenian Nazi general. Just what specific leadership is Armenian children being taught today in the General Dro leadership institute—hate, ethnic purity of the Armenian race, racial superiority?

And to think the Armenians, still running their “genocide industry” scam are building their very own genocide memorial two blocks from the American White House. There are less than one million Armenians even in the United States. Why should they spend $75 million dollars on a false claim to something that is disputed that happened 6000 miles away more than 85 years ago. The answer is simple. The Armenian American colony will use this self-invented, fake memorial to deceive and fleece even more American taxpayer dollars for their less than 200 year old homeland the Russians gave them after taking these lands from the Muslim owners. This Armenian genocide memorial will become one of the greatest and largest frauds ever attempted in the history of the entire world. Can anyone believe that Armenians, who took a very active role in the Jewish genocide of World War II, can build such a fake memorial to themselves today for the sole purpose of deceiving and fleecing American Christian taxpayers out of more and more foreign aid money that over the past ten years alone amounts to almost $1.5 billion dollars!

It is fair to ask since the Armenians were ten year partners in crime with the Nazis during the World War II years—will they have a memorial to Annemarie and Gerhard and all the other poor souls the Armenians helped the Nazis murder and exterminate?

Historical evidence proves there was no armenian genocide

Today, Armenians claim they were victims of an Ottoman genocide committed in 1915. The Armenians blame Turkey even though Turkey didn’t become a republic until 8 years after the “fake” Armenian claims. The real historical truth is that there was no Armenian genocide and the following historical facts are absolute proof that the self-claimed Armenian genocide is nothing more than the figment of their rich and vivid imaginations to try to get something for nothing. The Armenians have created a “genocide industry” for one very simple and basic reason—to deceive, fleece and scam the Christian world out of billions of dollars. Examine the actual historical truth:

The word “genocide” was invented and first used to describe the Nazi German attempted extermination of the entire Jewish race during the World War II years starting in the mid 1930s and lasting until 1945. Rafael Lemkin of Poland coined the phrase and invented the world “genocide” in 1944 to describe the Nazis’ annihilation of specific groups of people by both direct and indirect murder during World War II. The Nazis’ efforts to destroy the entire Jewish race first began in Germany and thereafter in every country they invaded and conquered. This Nazi planned and carried out terror became known as the Holocaust Genocide. The Nazi horror campaigns against Jews became the basis for creation of an international crime in 1951. The 1915 Armenian fake “massacre” claim of 1915 had nothing to do with the adoption of the 1951 international law as Armenians also falsely claim today.

There is no historical doubt but that the German Nazis carried out a genocide of Jews and they carried out a ten year series of on-going campaigns to murder every Jew they could get their hands on. Adolph Hitler was the evil genius who concocted the theory that the Aryan race was the master race of people and that all non-Aryan races were inferior.

The Armenians claim their ancestors suffered from the first “genocide” of the 20th century even though what they claim took place 29 years before the word “genocide” was even invented. In addition, there is no way to compare the Nazi World War II acts of ten long unending years throughout Europe to one event during World War I in the Ottoman Empire in 1915. What the Armenians complain of today is the fact that the Ottoman government removed disloyal Armenians who were committing many acts of treason from behind the Ottoman army in just one place within their legal country. Let us look at the historical evidence that caused the word “genocide” to be invented and compare the Armenian 1915 experience to what the Nazis did between 1935-1945 to determine if the Armenian’s treason can be called a genocide as compared to the Jewish experiences of World War II.

April 15, 1924: Hitler began writing his book Mein Kampf (My Struggle) while he was in prison for committing treason against Germany. Hitler writes that the Jews must be eliminated from society.

July 18, 1925: The first phase of Mein Kampf is published. Hitler begins his personal public hate campaign against the entire Jewish race. This is Hitler’s beginning to destroy the Jews. This 8 year campaign continued throughout Germany until Hitler came to power in 1933. No Ottoman leader wrote such a book condemning the Armenians and there was no long or short campaign to exterminate the entire Armenian race by any Ottoman leader. There is no comparison on this point between the Nazis and Ottomans.

January 30, 1933: Hitler comes to power as the unelected Chancellor of Germany.

February 22, 1933: some 40,00 members of Hitler’s private army are appointed auxiliary policemen.

March 21, 1933: Hitler and his Nazis create special courts to persecute political enemies. No such court was ever established within the Ottoman Empire.

April 1, 1933: marks the date Hitler and his Nazis began their “official” persecution of the Jews. This is the date there was a national boycott in Germany of Jewish business and professional people. The Ottomans never did such a thing to the Armenians.

April 26, 1933: Hitler organized the infamous Gestapo, this “above the law” police force would lead in the Jewish extermination campaigns. The Ottomans never had such a special police force to terrorize the Armenians.

May 2, 1933: Hitler dissolved all labor unions. The Ottomans never did such a thing. However, in Armenia today, labor unions like in Nazi Germany are not permitted. Between 50% and 60% of all Armenian businessmen do not pay any taxes. This is why the Armenian number one import is foreign aid from the Christian nations of the world. In Armenia today the privileged few, just as in Nazi Germany, get richer while the working people of this tiny state remain in poverty and are forced to live a life of squalor.

May 10, 1933: The Nazis burnt all books written by Jewish authors in Berlin and throughout Germany. The Ottomans never burned books written by Armenian authors.

Israel Ambassador to Armenia, Ms. Rivki Cohen, said a parallel must not be drawn between the Holocaust and the Armenian “genocide.” (Yerevan, Feb. 9, 2002.) Armenian parliament Deputy Ovaness Ovanissian replied: “A top-rank diplomat like her has no right to make such statements.”

September 15, 1935: The Nazi controlled German parliament passed what became known as the “Nuremberg Laws.” The Nazis disenfranchised all Jews. The Ottomans never did such a thing to Armenians.

March 12, 1938: Germany invaded Austria. This was the beginning of Nazi conquest of European countries and total extermination of Jews. The Ottomans did not invade other nations during World War I that the Armenians complain about.

October 28, 1938: the first Jews were deported just because they were Jews. The Ottomans never deported anyone because of race. What the Ottomans did was deport Armenians from only one part of their empire for being disloyal citizens who were actively helping the invading Russians. The Jews never helped anyone invade Germany. There is no way anyone can compare the Jews to Armenians!

However, in 1938 when the first Jews were deported, Armenians were voluntarily joining the Nazis to help them create the real genocide of the 20th century. The evidence is absolute that more than 100,000 Armenians joined Hitler. The evidence is also absolute that Armenian politicians took part in Hitler’s racial purity campaigns.

November 9, 1938: This is the date that became known as the “Crystal Night” because Nazi mobs throughout Germany attacked Jewish synagogues and stores. The Muslim Ottoman government never attacked “Christian” Armenian churches and stores. There is no way to compare this German action to the Ottomans. Today, in modern day Turkey, there are more Armenian churches operating that in Armenia.

November 12, 1938: German Jews were fined 1 billion marks solely because of their race. The Ottomans never did such a thing.

November 15, 1938: All Jewish students were expelled from all German schools for the sole reason of their race. The Ottomans never did such a thing.

December 3, 1938: Hitler issued a decree for compulsory Aryan ownership of all Jewish enterprises and shops throughout Germany and the occupied countries. The Ottomans never did such a thing—ever!

July 4, 1939: Hitler decreed that German Jews were prohibited from holding government jobs. The Ottomans never did such a thing.

July 21, 1939: Adolph Eichmann was appointed head of the Prague office of Jewish Emigration. The Ottomans never set up such a system in their lands or anywhere else as the Nazis did.

September 1, 1939: Hitler issued a decree that Jews in Germany were forbidden to be outdoors after 8 P.M. in winter and 9 P.M in summer. The Ottomans never did such a thing to the Armenians.

September 23, 1939: German Jews were forbidden to own wireless radios. The Ottomans never did such things to the Armenians

October 6, 1939: Hitler issues a proclamation for the isolation of Jews from the German population. The Ottomans never did such a thing.

October 12, 1939: Jews were removed from Vienna, Austria for the sole reason they were Jews. The reason the Ottomans removed Armenians from eastern Anatolia was because they were disloyal and were helping the invading Russians. The Nazi acts do not compare to the Ottoman actions. For anyone to compare Nazi Germany to the Ottoman Empire is to compare an apple to a fence post.

February 12, 1940: The Nazis deported the first Jews from Germany just because they were Jews. The Ottomans never did such a thing to the Armenians.

August 15, 1940: Adoplh Eichmann presented what became known as the Madagascar Plan for the removal of the entire Jewish race. The Ottomans never did such a thing.

November 15, 1940: The Nazis sealed off the Jewish “ghetto” in Warsaw, Poland.

March 7, 1941: Jews were compelled to provide forced (slave) labor for the Nazis. The Ottomans never did such a thing to the Armenians.

July 31, 1941: The Nazis issued the order to remove all Jews from German occupied territory in Europe. The Ottomans did not attack nor occupy any other nations’ land during World War I and there is no way to compare the Nazi action to that taken by the Ottomans against disloyal Armenians. The Nazis were on the offense capturing other people’s lands while the Ottomans were defending their empire from the invading Russians who were being helped by Ottoman citizen Armenians.

September 1, 1941: This is the date Nazis decreed that all Jews must wear a yellow star. The Ottomans never required the Armenians to wear the Christian cross as contrasted to the yellow star of David the Germans forced the Jews to wear.

September 17, 1941: marks the date the Nazis began the general deportation of all German Jews. The Ottomans never attempted to deport all Armenians. There is no way to compare the German acts to the Ottomans’.

September 23, 1941: The Nazis began tests for gassing Jews at Auschwitz. The Ottomans never did such a thing.

January 20, 1942: This is the date of the Wannsee Conference where the decision for the “Final Solution” to mass murder the entire Jewish population was made. The Ottomans never had such a conference and there never was an Ottoman “Final Solution” for all Armenians.

March 29, 1942: The Nazis sent the fist train filled with Jews from Paris, France to Auschwitz.

April 20, 1942: The Nazis issued a decree to ban all Jews from using public transportation. The Ottomans never did such a thing.

September 18, 1942: The Nazis reduced food rations of Jews in Germany. The Ottomans never did such a thing to Armenians throughout their empire.

October 4, 1942: All Jews in German concentration camps were ordered to be sent to Auschwitz. The Ottomans did not have concentration camps nor did they use gas chambers to murder Armenians as the Nazis did to the Jews.

December 15, 1942: The Armenian National Council was given official Nazi recognition by Alfred Rosenberg, the German minister of Nazi occupied areas. The Armenians had made a consecrated effort to prove to Hitler that they were Aryans like he was and they were so accepted. The proof is the Armenians were never persecuted in any Nazi occupied lands because they were Armenians.

The Armenians made radio broadcasts from Berlin supporting Hitler’s Aryan and racially pure beliefs. Several Armenian newspapers also supported Hitler’s ethnic/racial pure beliefs during World War II. The Ottomans never did such things. The actual proof is that during World War II the Turks opposed Hitler while the Armenians within Turkey supported first Hitler and then switched sides to the Russians when they saw Germany losing the war.

February 27, 1943: Jews who were forced to work in the German armaments industry were sent to Auschwitz. The Ottomans never did such a thing.

March 13, 1943: The Nazis opened their first new crematorium at Auschwitz. The Ottomans never did such a thing.

April 14, 1943: The Nazis began transporting Jews from Athens, Greece to Auschwitz. The Ottomans never did such a thing.

April 30, 1945: Approximately 33,000 inmates were freed from Nazi concentration camps by American troops. The United States was never at war with the Ottoman government in 1915 or ever. There were no concentration camps used by the Ottomans.

November 20, 1945: The Nuremberg International Tribunal began to try Nazi leaders for war crimes. There was no such international tribunal who tried the Ottomans for war crimes after World War I. The truth is the British and French did arrest a number of Ottoman citizens after World War I ended. After holding these men in prison for some two years each and every Ottoman citizen was released as the British could find no evidence that they had committed any war crimes.

After World War I the Paris Peace Conference was held. The Armenians presented their massacre claims to this conference who heard them out and considered the evidence presented by the Armenians. The Peace Conference rejected the Armenians’ massacre claims and gave them nothing for damages. The Armenians refused to accept the Peace Conference’s “NO” answer and again asked to be heard and to present more evidence. The Paris Peace Conference agreed to allow the Armenians to present their massacre claims a second time and again—for a second time the Paris Peace Conference rejected the Armenians’ claim against the Ottoman Empire and gave them nothing.

The Armenians have had their day in court not once, but twice, and they offered their self-called proof twice and each time they received nothing. Today the Armenians want land and reparations from Turkey, which didn’t even come into existence until 1923—8 years after the self anointed Armenian genocide bogus claim. The Armenian government demands today that the Turkish government admit to this fake genocide claim. The question cries out to be answered: Why should the Turks admit to any such thing? When will the Armenians work for peace in their region of the world rather than starting war after war and making false demands upon its neighbors?

The rest of the story is simply this:

(1) The Armenians have had their false claims of a massacre against the Ottoman Empire heard in a friendly court not once but twice. The Armenians have twice had their day in the proper courts. Each time the friendly court rejected the Armenians’ own evidence. In plain language, the Armenians presented their claims. The losing World War I Ottoman government did not appear to contest the Armenian claims. The truth is the Armenians, not once, but twice lost their uncontested day in court.

(2) Today, the Armenians dare to compare their self-anointed bogus “genocide” claim to what the Nazis did to the Jews during the World War II era. The above listed examples are but a few of the many that are in the history books to contrast and prove (as proof certain) there is no real world way to compare the Nazis to the Ottomans as the Armenians try to do.

(3) The rest of the story, based on actual historical evidence, proves than more than 100,000 Armenians voluntarily joined the Nazis beginning in 1935 to help create an ethnic/racial pure state. Today in Armenia, the Armenian government honors one of its Nazi Armenian generals of World War II fame. There is a youth leadership Institute bearing his name. The question must be asked just what are the Armenians teaching their children in the name of this Nazi who helped exterminate so may Jews?

(4) Armenians produced a weekly radio program in Berlin titled “Armenia.” This Armenian radio program supported Hitler’s Aryan ethnic/racial pure state. Armenian newspapers also supported Hitler and his Nazis.

(5) Armenian leadership conspired with Hitler’s top lieutenants and the end result was that Armenians were labeled by the Nazis as “racially pure.” After Hitler and his Nazis lost the war Armenians switched sides and forged a document to falsely claim Hitler said at one time “Who remembers the Armenians?” The truth is that Hitler and his Nazis remembered the Armenians and they were so recognized by him as fellow Aryans and together they committed a genocide of the Jews.

(6) The Paris Peace Conference, at the time, immediately after World War I heard all the evidence and made decisions about what was right and wrong. Since the Paris Peace Conference at the time rejected Armenian claims—what right does any nation or group now have to reopen this historical period of time to give Armenians damages from a country that wasn’t even in existence until 8 years after the false claim was first made? To grant the Armenian “wish” of condemning modern day Turkey of committing a genocide is just not justice in today’s world.

“Armenia, Secrets of a ’Christian’ terrorist state”
Samuel A. WEEMS

Christopher J. Walker’s “Armenia-The Survival of a Nation” (page 357, para 2)

“…Nevertheless there remains the incostestable fact that relations between the Nazis and Daschnaks living in occupied areas were close and active. On 30 december 1941 an Armenian batallion was created by a decision of the Wehrmacht, known as the Armenian 812th Battalion. It was commanded by Dro, and was made up of a small number of committed recruits, and a larger number of Armenians from the prisoners of war takenby the Nazis in their sweep eastwards. Early on the total number was 8000;this number later grew to 20000. The 812. th Batallion was operationalin the CrimeaandtheNorthCaucasus.Ayearlater, on 15 December 1942, an Armenian NationalCouncil was granted officialrecognitionbyAlfred Rosenberg, the Germanministerof the occupied areas. The Council president was Professor Ardasher Abeghian,its vice-president Abraham Guilkhandanian and it numbered among its members Nzhdeh and Vahan Papazian.From that date until thje end of 1944 it published a weekly journal,Armenian, edited by Viken Shantn(the son of Levon) who also broadcast on Radio Berlin… What was the motive for the collaboration in the occupied areas ? It is possible to see it as a purely vengeful desire to retake Armenia from the Bolsheviks….. There is in the untutored mind a tendency to class Armenians and Jews together (offensive to both peoples); and the malevolent paranoia of the Nazis might have manifested itself against Armenians as well as Jews. Hence it was important to prove to the Nazis that the Armenians were Aryans.With the aid of Dr.Paul Rohrbach they seem to have achieved this. The Nazis did not persecute Armenians, just for being Armenians, in the occupied lands…”

[1] Turkkaya Ataov: Armenian Extermination of the Jews and Muslims, 1984, p. 91.

[2] C.J. Walker: Armenia, London, 1980, pp. 356-8.

[3] C.J. Walker: Armenia, London, 1980, pp. 356-8.

[4] John Roy Carlson (Arthur Derounian), Cairo to Damascus Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1951, p. 438

tetedeturc.com, 2004

If you don’t like the way big banks are run, move your money

Haluk Demirbag — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:20:30 +0000

The bankers’ pay issue is not just about Stephen Hester’s bonus at RBS. A boycott is a way of tackling the systemic problems

John Harris

Focusing on RBS threatens to restrict the debate to the morals of state ownership.' Photograph: David Cheskin/PA

Where next for the story of Stephen Hester’s bonus? On Sunday, two papers reported that the now-infamous £963,000 is only a fraction of his treasure-chest. Partly thanks to something called a “long-term incentive plan”, by this time next year he is likely to have been handed another £8m in shares, which will take his rewards since he took charge of RBS in 2008 to not far short of £40m.

But herein lies danger. It suits the imperatives of the news media to have such a huge issue boiled down to the rewards package of one man; it’s also in the interests of the privileged people who own whole swaths of the press and broadcast media to do whatever they can to ensure that such a reductive script is followed to the letter. In that context, note the perfect role played by the RBS chairman, Sir Philip Hampton, now given temporary sainthood for turning down his bonus of £1.4m. His intervention has done its work: the issue is now in danger of becoming about matters of character and choice, rather than anything systemic.

So, what to do? Clearly, the argument about high pay is in danger of turning cacophonous, and thereby meaningless. Canards and dead-ends abound: focusing on RBS threatens to restrict the debate to the morals of state ownership; “transparency” is a crock. Talking about “rewards for failure” nudges the issue away from basic inequality, and even limiting the conversation to the banks lets plenty of companies off the hook (witness Bart Becht, the one-time CEO of the firm that makes Cillit Bang detergent, in 2010 given a cash-and-shares package of £90m).

Moreover, huge amounts are said, and almost still nothing done. Faced with global practices, even the most well-intentioned politicians – Ed Miliband, Vince Cable – can only try and keep the issue on the agenda in the hope that openings will eventually appear for more convincing policy.

But Lest anyone succumb to fatalism, some interesting developments are afoot. The last two years have seen national and local campaigns in the US, encouraging people to move their cash away from big financial institutions and into small banks and local credit unions. A big fillip came with Bank Of America’s decision to charge customers a $5 monthly fee for using their debit cards – which resulted in as many people joining US credit unions in a single month as usually make the switch in a year, and played its part in that bank and others dropping the plan. The campaigns’ focus, of course, is much bigger than that – but the episode proved they were hardly wasting their time.

That there are problems with approach is self-evident: Bank Of America has 58 million customers, whereas the campaigns were cheering about the defection of hundreds of thousands. But, in the form of the Move Your Money project and the US Move Our Money, they are still there. The former builds it activities around the recognition that “little has changed to prevent another financial crisis or to end ‘too big to fail’”, and wants to encourage people “to take power into their own hands by voting with their dollars and no longer contributing to a financial system that has led our country astray”. The latter claims it has so far deprived big banks of around $57m dollars.

But more important than any figures is what these protests represent: a focus for outrage, as networked and agile as modern protest demands, that can keep the issues simmering away.

This week, a British version launches, with the support of such unions as the GMB and Unite and the comparatively saintly Co-operative Group, along with some of the people involved in UK Uncut. They presumably know that the importance of high-street banking is dwarfed by the clout of the banks’ investment wings, but that doesn’t necessarily detract from the damage to their brands that can be wrought by such targeted protest.

Cynics will scoff and claim the politics of boycotts can be just as distracting as the non-debates embraced by politicians and the press, reducible to the salving of consciences rather than any actual change. But with what is left of Occupy currently quiet and introspective, and the Hester case proving that spasms of righteousness are no substitute for the politics of the long haul, this latest move offers something very welcome: at least one means by which the arguments about the obscenities of inequality can be kept in roughly the right place.

www.guardian.co.uk, 29 January 2012

Motorcyclist killed in crash on Hollywood Blvd.

aira — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 01:14:12 +0000

By City News Service, on January 29, 2012, at 10:56 am

A 25-year-old man riding a motorcycle was killed today in a crash with a van on the southbound Hollywood (101) Freeway just south of the Cahuenga Pass, the California Highway Patrol said.

The wreck, approaching Hollywood Boulevard, was reported at 1:23 a.m., prompting the CHP to temporarily close the freeway to accommodate their investigation, CHP Officer Anthony Martin said.

The man driving a 2008 Ford E-350 van was not cited or arrested, according to the CHP. He was identified only as a 48-year-old man from Istanbul, Turkey.

Both he and his passenger, a 16-year-old girl also from Istanbul, suffered minor injuries.

The name of the motorcyclist, who was a resident of Ontario, will be released after his family is notified, according to the Coroner’s Office.

The motorcyclist was riding a 2012 Kawasaki.

via Motorcyclist killed in crash on Hollywood Blvd..

Former NSA Chief Called CIA ‘Out of Control’

Haluk Demirbag — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:59:47 +0000

William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency, was known as an outspoken advocate for intelligence reform

The CIA is “out of control” and often refuses to cooperate with other parts of the national security community, even undermining their efforts, said former National Security Agency head William Odom, according to a recently released record of a 9/11 Commission interview.

By Sharon Weinberger

“The CIA currently doesn’t work for anyone. It thinks it works for the president, but it doesn’t and it’s out of control,” says a report summarizing remarks made by Odom, a retired three-star general who served as director of the NSA from 1985 to 1988.

Odom, who also served on the National Security Council staff during the Carter administration, was known as an outspoken advocate for intelligence reform. He died in 2008.

The 2003 interview, among others conducted by the 9/11 Commission, was posted on the website Cryptome, which is often compared to the secret-spilling WikiLeaks website. The report was not a leak, however, but one of many records relating to the 9/11 Commission that have been released and made available on the National Archives website.

“Quite a few remain ‘access restricted’ for classification review,” John Young, who runs Cryptome, told AOL News in an e-mail about the records, some of which he has reposted. “We expect to make an FOIA [Freedom of information Act] request for their release once we have a full listing of those restricted.”

In the commission interview, Odom portrayed CIA officers as individualistic, saying they were interested in writing “exposes.” He also accused the CIA of not sharing “humint,” meaning intelligence collected through contact with people, and of trying to sabotage the Pentagon’s own work in this area.

“The director of the CIA has as much reason to brief the president as the man on the moon,” Odom told the staff of the commission investigating the failure to prevent the terror attacks.

Odom also believed that intelligence officials weren’t held sufficiently accountable for the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He said he believed that the heads of the NSA and the CIA should both have been fired by the president after 9/11 for “symbolic purposes.”

Many of Odom’s views had already been laid out in his book, “Fixing Intelligence,” which presented his ideas for overhauling the U.S. intelligence process. Some of the reforms Odom advocated to the commission, such as separation of the director of national intelligence from the head of the CIA, were eventually implemented.

While deeply critical of the CIA, Odom also had harsh words for other NSA directors, including Adm. Bobby Inman, whom he accused of “playing games” in Washington. He also said that Gen. Michael Hayden, then the director of the NSA, was “destroying” the agency and didn’t know his “intellectual limits.”

Hayden went on to become head of the CIA in 2006.

www.veteranstoday.com, 15 January 2012

Obama Claims Iran is “Isolated” When the Opposite is True

Haluk Demirbag — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 16:54:38 +0000

Obama claims “a world once divided [on Iran]. . .now stands as one” and that Iran is “isolated”. Is it Iran or the US & Israel who are “isolated”?

by Joshua Blakeney

Press TV: US president Barack Obama has asserted the country’s ironclad commitment to Israel’s security; while repeatedly threatening Iran with what he calls ‘all options on the table’.

Obama once again renewed US threats against Iran during his State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress on January 24, saying that Washington will maintain pressure on the Islamic Republic over its nuclear program.

“America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal,” the US president said.

Iran has categorically refuted the US-led allegations regarding its nuclear program, insisting that the country’s nuclear program is only intended for peaceful civilian purposes.

Joshua Blakeney, staff writer from Veterans Today; joins Press TV to share his opinions on the issue of the US president’s State of the Union Speech.

What follows is an approximate transcript of the interview.

[SOURCE: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/223209.html]

Press TV: Joshua Blakeney thank you so much for joining us. Let us go directly to the first question which starts with what the US president in the State of the Union address said and is it really a disinformation and that is that, Iran is on the path of acquiring a nuclear weapon?

Blakeney: Yes, it was a quite myopic speech, coming from the president of the United States. I mean, I found it particularly telling that he made the statement that “the world was once divided and”, thanks to him, “the world is now united on the question of Iran.”

I am having some feedback, I apologize. But the reality is of course that the Non-Aligned Movement – which is consisted of a 120 nations – issued a statement just eight days ago in which they endorsed Iranian sovereignty and expressed their hostility towards the US encroaching on Iranian sovereignty.

And therefore that was one utterance from the President of the United States that was evidently false.

Obama forgot to mention in his State of the Union address that the 120 members of the Non-Aligned-Movement support Iranian sovereignty and denounce US-Israeli hostility towards Iran

Obviously the insinuation that Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons is buttressed by no evidence and of course the IAEA, [International Atomic Energy Agency], any statements they have made in which they have indirectly implied this, has been inferred from evidence, so called, provided to them by itsmember states like the United States and Israel and Britain and therefore their statements are not reliable at all.

Iran clearly is trying to develop a civilian nuclear program, like France has; like many countries in the world have; which is completely justifiable and indeed legal.

And so the president of the United States I think reflected not necessarily his own perspective but those of his backers. You know, the United States political system is one where money speaks; in a capitalist system those who own capital have political clout.

And the statements that Barack Obama made vis-à-vis the Middle East, and really in general to do with domestic economics also, I believe, were the product of his backers.

And we know who is supporting the Democrat Party financially and what their agenda is in terms of Middle East policy.

And that in my humble opinion is to promote the interest of the state of Israel, often in fact jeopardizing traditional US-Middle East policy which was to try and do bilateral negotiations within ensconced Middle East regimes. And therefore this speech has to go down as an embarrassment.

And in fact if you look, if you go to about an hour, into Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address in about an hour into it, you will see that when he mentions Iran and when he mentions his ironclad support for the State of Israel, that actually only about half of the Congress persons clapped which might indicate that there is some discontent with this tendentious policy of the United States towards the State of Israel.

Press TV: Joshua Blakeney, this all options on the table is something again perhaps, maybe because of a reelection year for Obama maybe its a signal and some say for the Israeli lobby at the same time the great length that the United States is going to get sanctions on Iran.

We know that they have made and introduced the sanctions, trying to get EU [European Union] which they got their approval even though it’s at the behest of Europe in terms of what they are going through regarding the Euro zone crisis, of course going with his co-worker [US Secretary of the Treasury] Timothy Geithner all the way to China and we saw what happened there regarding getting China on board and of course then with India.

I mean what is it that the US president means with this ‘all options on the table’?

Blakeney: Well, I think it is largely empty rhetoric from the President of the United States and I think there is a tendency among the political class to think if they repeat something as many times as possible that it would begin to be true.

And Barrack Obama said in his State of the Union address that the world is now united against Iran and that is patently false, is Venezuela against Iran? Is China against Iran? Is the Non-Aligned Movement of 120 nations against Iran?

I do not think so, so we are seeing the decline of Anglo-America and this kind of Euro- American imperialist world that the planet has been victim of for the past 500 years really since 1492 and we are living in a multipolar world now, one where Iran has some agency.

China and Iran continue to trade with each other irrespective of the sanctions imposed by the U.S. and E.U.

And if the European Union and the United States wants to work in Israel’s interests and against its own interests of doing commercial dealings with Iran, then Iran will go elsewhere and trade its resources and goods with other nations which I think is a good thing. I think it is good that we are living in a multipolar world.

One of the intellectuals authors of the “war on terror” was an individual named Charles Krauthammer, who in 1990 authored a paper entitled The Unipolar Moment, in which he said, oh this moment after the Soviet Union has declined US must jumped on it, because it won’t be there for ever.

And that unipolar moment, you know, metastasized into the invasion of Iraq and the invasion of Afghanistan. But I believe that actually they cannot invade and attack Iran because they are bereft of soldiers for a start; they’re overstretched militarily, the United States, and moreover Iran has a capability to defend itself.
Press TV: So what is it [the US] trying to do there when it keeps saying it Joshua Blakeney, I mean, some say well it is a distraction from the problems that he [Obama] is facing at home. And I am talking about the Occupy movement, do you agree with that?

Joshua Blakeney and Mark Glenn critically analyze Barak Obama’s State of the Union speech on Press TV.

Iran is on the right side of history contributing to the success of the Bolivarian Revolution in Latin America. Iran and many nations in Latin America are at the forefront of the resistance to the international imperialism of the US, Britain and Israel

Blakeney: Yes, to an extent. You know it offers a scapegoat, a smokescreen to distract people. So I do agree to a large extent with what my colleague said.

You know the fact of the matter is that US politicians need to pander and Kowtow to the Israel lobby in the United States.

JJ Goldberg did a study in the 1990′s in which he deduced that 45% of Democrat party donations came from individuals who are partisan to the State of Israel.

And in 2006 Richard Cohen did a study in the Washington Post, in which he indicated 60% of the Democrat Party [money] comes from individuals whose primary allegiance is to the state of Israel.

So if 60% of the Barack Obama’s money is coming from individuals whose first priority is Israel, is it very surprising that Barack Obama would have this so called ‘ironclad’ consensus with the state of Israel?

I think that this is historically precedented, if you look in 1965 for example, when the British empire was trying to extend self determination and self rule to the inhabitants of the Rhodesia, the natives of Rhodesia, we saw the local crazed ethnic nationalists form a schism in the British empire and rise up and declare independence likewise the US after the Cold War had no use for Israel anymore.

The divergence between a rational U.S. Middle East policy and the Israeli Middle East policy of denying Arabs and Muslims cohesion and stability is analogous with the divergence of interests between the declining British Empire and regional Rhodesian white ethnic nationalists in 1965 (as portrayed from 5 mins 52 seconds in the above video). ]

After 1967 Israel proved itself to be a formidable fighting force and within the context of the Cold War the United States could use Israel to smash up this or that Arab nation or to extend its Middle East policy.

After the Cold War what use did the US have for Israel or for South Africa? In the case of South Africa, the Afrikaners did not have a lobby in the United States and so the US cast them adrift in the 1980′s and the VETO they provided them in the United Nations dissipated.

Unfortunately, what would have been logical and rational from the perspective of US hegemony who would obviously want to win over Middle East governments to resist the hegemony of the …..

Press TV: Joshua Blakeney, the US president said that this is the right time for the United States to be on the right side of the Middle East.

Is the US on the right side of the Middle East? Quickly [we have] twenty seconds or less.

Blakeney: No, it is definitely not. In the 1980s the Israeli government formulated a new policy of wanting to destabilize the Middle East which goes against US oil interests, against the US rational interests as a global hegemon.