An anonymous person - suspected of Arabicity - has been pestering this non-blog with snide remarks about the Jewish penis. That grants me the right to comment on the last Al Gharbia Camel Al Mazayna (pic), where a foreign competitor outran the locals and won the valuable prize. But the Camel Mazayna (race) is not only about gambling and Bedouin folklore, it’s also a market of race camels where large profits are made. So when the winning camel was put on auction and examined, it was discovered that a Hebrew scroll (philacteries) had been attached to its forehead with leather strips. Interrogated, the camel confessed to being a Mossad spy and the prize had to be returned. I was not there personally but it sounds almost true.
21 comments:
Chuck Hagel is the new Defense Secretary... It seems that we're losing control of America.
I don't think that the holy land will survive until 2020.
The Jews have never had total control of American government except in the fevered imaginations of the anti-Semites. As an American Jew, I would be pleased if Hagel would disentangle the U.S. military from its costly Middle Eastern adventures and keep us out of new ones. If Israel's survival depends on who is U.S. Secretary of Defense, it doesn't deserve to survive.
As said many times, Israel's survival doesnt depend on American good will but American and European national interests. The situation is surprisingly stable and President Obama has succeeded in domesticating Ahmedenijad and there is no immediate danger from any side. All in all, we have to give some credit to him.
PS.: And we have our camels in the Arab countries. They cant fuck without we knowing it immediately.
The camel may appear to be wearing t'fillin but actually it is a GPS device which points the way for Israeli drones.
K
Kristol is going apeshit with Hagel nomination...
Hagel is a sop to Iran. And the Tea Party.
And, by the way, Ahmedinajad is not yet full house-trained, I suspect.
Anon.
Suspiciously, Iran has been importing large quantities of adult-size napkins lately. Our spy-camel intelligence says it is moved directly to the Presidential Palace.
Why would the President want to give aid and comfort to America's enemy? Isolationists, peaceniks, etc. sincerely think that what they are doing is in their nation's best interest; they are spectacularly wrong but not intentionally treasonous.
K
Just obey the jews, the end.
Obey your cultural Marxist masters and the capitalist elite.
Obey your cultural Marxist masters and the capitalist elite.
What I said, the jews.
Why are American isolationists spectacularly wrong? If the U.S. military were to depart the Middle East, the only involvement the country would need to have with the Middle East would be to purchase oil. Perhaps we could even reduce Arab Muslim immigration. It's not as if U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern wars has kept the price of oil low - it's much higher now than it was in 2003. And the wars have been very costly. Huge, nearly instant savings could be achieved.
Iran maybe America's enemy, but it is not the President's enemy.
Anon.
Those Jews Carnegie and Rockefeller.
The US tried a "hands off" strategy before and it led to 9/11. If the US doesn't install its own friendly dictators in Arab countries, unfriendly violent dictators will install themselves instead. Those are our choices. The Arabs magically becoming Swiss is not one of them.
K
Those devious Elders of Zion - they put a crypto-Muslim named Hussein in the White House just to throw the goyim off the scent.
K
K,
Before 1990, there was a "friendly" secular dictator in Iraq. He became unfriendly after the U.S. defended the interests of its ally/oil salesman Kuwait. But he was contained and at least he was secular. U.S. intervention has created nothing but trouble. The weakness created in Iraq has strengthened the unfriendly dictatorship in Iran, which is good for neither the U.S. nor Israel. You could counter that failure to maintain a sufficiently active presence allowed the fall of the Shah, but I would say that the consequences of American intervention have been difficult to predict and inconsistently positive. With results like that, staying home makes sense.
You may not be interested in war but war is interested in you. The people in the Twin Towers wanted to stay home too.
Carter was our worst President until Obama. The Iranian people themselves are infinitely worse off under the ayatollahs than they were under the "repressive" Shah. Khomeini sent millions to die or be maimed in the Iraq war.
The consequences of our interventions have been "inconsistently positive" because the military and political leadership is a bunch of ass kissing time servers infected with political correctness and living in fear that the 5th columnists of the press will paint them in a bad light. The US is schizophrenic - we need to maintain an empire lest the world descent into another dark age, but we want to pretend that we are not imperialists. From a Arab POV, what we think of as "humanitarian policies", Arabs read as "weakness". We've only does as well as we have because the US government has a seemingly endless supply of money to waste.
K
I actually agree with you in part about what has caused the ineffectiveness of U.S. intervention. For certain, if the U.S. media were patriotic and allowed the troops and intelligence apparatus to operate more ruthlessly, there would be more successes. However, military occupations is a thankless task that breeds opposition even in the face of ruthlessness. The Nazis were more ruthless with non-Jewish Poles and Czechs than the U.S. could ever be with the Arabs, yet the Poles and Czechs resisted where they could. The French resistance was also treated brutally but persevered. Face it, the Arabs hate us and want us out. Unless you're willing to countenance having them all killed, occupying their countries is doomed to failure.
The Germans lost the war because of Patton and Zhukov, not because of the French Resistance. The Resistance only became glorious in the post-war retelling by the French.
Arabs are sheeple who will go whichever way they are led and their leaders could care less about them - they are only interested in enriching themselves.
K
Post a Comment