My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Second: You can make a tax deductible contribution via VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring "subscription" donations.) UPDATE: Don't try this at the moment.
Third: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address (that's isteveslrATgmail.com -- replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.
You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.
Or you can send money via credit card (Visa, MasterCard, AmEx, Discover) with the industry-standard 2.9% fee. (You don't need to put money into your Google Wallet Balance to do this.)
Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).
Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here's how to do it.
(Non-tax deductible.)
Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)
Posts
52 comments:
I'm sorry if I haven't been following this closely, but there appears to have been some sort of disagreement between those Washington insiders who are paid to serve Saudi interests and those Washington insiders who would pay to serve Israeli interests. Apparently, American interests remain of little interest.
Anti-semitic bastard. How dare you question Israeli interests coming before our own!
Apparently, Charles Freeman blamed all of his problems on something he calls the “Israel lobby.”
Funny, I follow the news all the time and I’ve never heard of this “Israel lobby” thing. He must have made it up.
It's a strange, strange in which world we live.
There is no possible way that anyone could support the thuggish theocratic regime of Saudi Arabia without having financial ties. These people sell their souls for Saudi money. Everyone talks about the Israeli Lobby, but no one mentions the Saudi Lobby. Saudi Arabia is one of the most oppressive regimes on earth, but most nations let economics dictate morality. The real reason why Freeman should never have been chosen by the "Chosen One", was his statement that China waited too long to crush the Tianeman Square protesters in 1989 and should been more forceful. Freeman is a slug for money regardless of how dirty it is.
Come on, Steve, this isn't fair. Freeman also represented China's interests, not just Saudi Arabia's interests.
I can't help you with who represents America's interests, though. I don't think anyone knows the answer.
amcon mag's blog has a good refutationof the corruption charges. he wasn't kosher on israel. that is what mattered and allt hat matters, ever, until we usurp the hostile elite runnign this country.
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2009/03/10/that-was-a-not-so-close-one/#comments Freeman
Washington insiders who are paid to serve Saudi interests
As the Saudis are huge business partners of America, Saudi interests are very much in line with American interests.
Freeman is far worse than that Steve.
As the daily briefer to the President, he is paid by CNOOC, and is an apologist for Tiananmen and other Chinese brutality. HE thought China was too "lenient" on Tiananmen.
At the very least, this brings to mind his ability to detail everything without prejudice relating to China for the President.
Then there is his assertion that the US caused 9/11 (at odds with an earlier statement that the US was NOT the cause of terrorism) and that the US reaction to 9/11 was "ugly" and "racist."
About on the par with Obama's CTO's office being raided by the FBI this AM in a bribery scandal.
A clown show. Obama can't even get GWB level competent guys, or Clinton-era corrupt idiots.
Marty Peretz summed it up:
But [Chas] Freeman's real offense (and the president's if he were to appoint him) is that he has questioned the loyalty and patriotism of not only Zionists and other friends of Israel, the great swath of American Jews and their Christian countrymen, who believed that the protection of Zion is at the core of our religious and secular history, from the Pilgrim fathers through Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy. And how has he offended this tradition? By publishing and peddling the unabridged John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, with panegyric and hysteria.
They are popping champagne corks over at Commentary and congratulating everyone involved yet still denying the power of the Israel lobby.
Apparently, American interests remain of little interest.
Unfortunately, your countrymen don't seem to care so nothing is going to change.
Freeman told it exactly like it is.
Expect him to suffer "a mental breakdown" or a tragic automobile accident soon. Or maybe they'll photograph him walking unawares into his bedroom where they've planted a 14-year-old girl in the buff.
You laugh now.
STeve:: have you read Richard Florida's 'how the crash will reshape america'? It should provide hours of entertainment.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/meltdown-geography
BHO seems to be having quite a few problems finding unsullied individuals for his team: Another one withdraws.
Sounds like fiscus interuptus.
The other big story is the Pentagon's plan to fasttrack citizenship for immigrants who will fight "America's" wars.
Then there is his assertion that the US caused 9/11....
If by "US" you mean "US government", then the assertion is the rough equivalent of 2+2=4. At the very least, the government's foreign policy and immigration policy were two separate "but-for" causes of the attack.
T99, you have no credibility on the China thing. Your country trades weapons technology (most of it stolen from the US) back and forth with the Chinese.
I would have expected protectionist paleos to be more hostile to the paid pro-China Freeman. Speaking of lobbies, isn't he part of the 'treason lobby' (paleo term) for helping the number one outsourcee of American jobs?
You would think that Israel and Saudi Arabia (to the ususal critics: see how fair I'm being) were the biggest importers of American jobs and exporters of would-be American products.
How many paleos claim that the Shekel and the Riyal (being fair again) are being manipulated to the disadvantage of US workers?
The combined total of American jobs lost as a result of Israeli and Sausi Arabian trade policies is?
And yet not a single comment about this here.
The real reason why Freeman should never have been chosen by the "Chosen One", was his statement that China waited too long to crush the Tianeman Square protesters in 1989 and should been more forceful.
Heh. I think they should have been more forceful too. The deluded young men and women who are involved in the "pro-democracy" movement in China are roughly equivalent to Western leftists. China won't survive long-term if they're not crushed. If they're not crushed, China will die the way the West is dying now.
anony-mouse said...
I would have expected protectionist paleos to be more hostile to the paid pro-China Freeman.
Anonymous said...
The deluded young men and women who are involved in the "pro-democracy" movement in China are roughly equivalent to Western leftists. China won't survive long-term if they're not crushed. If they're not crushed, China will die the way the West is dying now.
Asked and answered.
Many who claim to be paleos are, deep down, repressive authoritarian types who don't really mean what they say about preserving individual liberties or communal traditions against the intrusions of the state. They just want to be the ones running the authoritarian state. Their admiration for those living out their secret fantasies outweighs any concern they might have about the harm that China is doing to the U.S. These "paleos" really aren't so different in their basic political understanding from the leftists they claim to oppose.
I've defended the Freeman take on Tiananmen, even if Daniel Larison claims that's not what he actually believes.
There is a powerful Saudi lobby, but it's a mistake to think that it ever challenges the Israeli lobby. The Saudi lobby is responsible for talk of "moderate Muslim regimes" who need to be protected from big bad Iran. The original "China lobby" was based in Taiwan.
The "realists" are the only ones who actually claim that U.S interests should trump those of other countries. Freeman was about as good as you were going to get.
Many who claim to be paleos are, deep down, repressive authoritarian types who don't really mean what they say about preserving individual liberties...
You're buying their rhetoric at face value. Just because someone says he's fighting for individual liberties, you believe that he actually does.
There are no individual liberties in a leftist paradise. I don't know if you've noticed, but t99 here has just endorsed the Chinese dissident position. Do you think he cares about Chinese (or anyone else's, except for his own group's) individual liberties? The NY Times spends a lot of time supporting the Chinese dissidents' position. Do you think the Times cares about the well-being of the Chinese?
Paleos sometimes get confused on this issue because in China, just like in the Soviet block between 1946 and 1985, the real conservatives call themselves Communists and the real leftists call themselves anti-Communists. That is a fluke, a random artifact of history. Don't look at the label, look at the substance. When official Communism still embodied Marxist-Leninist ideas (1917-1946 in Russia, for example), the New York Times was pro-Communist. It only became anti-Communist when Stalin (and later Mao) moved away from real, "rootless cosmopolitan"-type Communism and towards morally traditionalist nationalism.
You're buying their rhetoric at face value. Just because someone says he's fighting for individual liberties, you believe that he actually does.
Uh, no. My point, which I explicitly stated, was exactly the opposite.
And I certainly don't assume that NY Times editorialists or radical chic leftists or anonymous internet paleocons always mean what they say.
Or are you trying to claim that Freeman and the anonymous pro-China paleocon poster are secretly on the side of the Chinese dissidents? I would find that claim pretty far-fetched.
You're buying their rhetoric at face value. Just because someone says he's fighting for individual liberties, you believe that he actually does.
And if you're trying to claim that the Chinese dissidents aren't all real pro-liberty types...well, duh. I'm sure they are a mixed lot, some with very creditable motives, others not so much. So what? The fact remains the China is a brutally repressive authoritarian--not to say totalitarian--regime whose rise to superpower status does not bode well for the United States or the rest of the world.
Or are you trying to claim that Freeman and the anonymous pro-China paleocon poster are secretly on the side of the Chinese dissidents?
I wasn't trying to claim that. And I'm that same anonymous to whom you responded the first time. I guess it would have been less confusing if I gave myself a nick.
It seems to me that you have bought into the idea that those in China who say that they're fighting for democracy are actually fighting for democracy. I don't buy that idea at all. I think that they're fighting for leftism. This is exactly why Western leftists like them so much.
i will represent America's interests, if you pay me.
Former CEO said...
i will represent America's interests, if you pay me.
I will pay you to represent my interests, which are identical to America's interests, no matter how obviously destructive to America they might seem.
Apparently, Charles Freeman blamed all of his problems on something he calls the “Israel lobby.”
Funny, I follow the news all the time and I’ve never heard of this “Israel lobby” thing. He must have made it up.
Ha, ha!! Nailed it, dead on...
My country is America. I'm not Jewish, either. This sure brings out the usual suspects.
The WaPo has an interesting set of information. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi particularly torpedoed Freeman.
Over, basically, China. Pelosi in particular has lots of Emigre Chinese who provide lots of funding and have ambivalent attitudes towards the Chinese government that they both hate and love. Freeman pushed her buttons and htat of Feinstein, both of who heard loud and clear from who REALLY has money in the Bay Area -- the Chinese community.
Believe me, most Chinese do at the same time love and hate their government.
How hard could it have been to have found someone non-controversial? Freeman does not even have any intel experience on his CV, his lunatic politics must have attracted Obama, particularly his hatred of America and love of the Saudis.
[For the record: 9/11 was caused by Osama figuring out that killing lots of Americans brings in the cash, men, and power, just like killing lots of Soviets did. It's not about "us" or anything we say, do, books we publish, cartoons published, Israel, Jews, support for this regime or that, rescuing or not rescuing Muslims. It's about how power flows from killing people. That's pretty basic, beyond sadly many of you here. Clearly beyond Freeman, even though he originally said in 1998 under Clinton JUST THAT, after the Embassy bombings in Africa.]
Support for Freeman shows the achilles heel of Paleocons: they hate Israel and Jews more than they love their country, as noted Freeman was a paid shill for the Chinese and actually on the payroll of CNOOC.
Tiananmen was about ending the crony capitalism of the corrupt, and failing, Chinese regime. Most Chinese (I've been there, most here have not) are intensely nationalistic and anti-Western. The Tiananmen folk at least wanted a more honest, open, transparent regime where starting a business did not require official connections in the form of being a "Red Prince."
The Communists in China are no more "conservative" than Pat Buchanon is. Both endorse a crony-connected capitalism that guarantees periodic peasant revolts which, surprise, are a function of modern China and require aggressive Wars to release social tension.
Since St. Paddy's Day is right around the corner:
Do You Want Your Old Lobby Washed Down
Has anyone ever been rejected from a major government position for being too pro-Israel? Say, spying for Israel, being a US-Israeli dual citizen, serving in the Israeli military, calling for ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, etc.? Is it even conceivable?
airtommy said...
As the Saudis are huge business partners of America, Saudi interests are very much in line with American interests.
No, Saudi interests are not in line with American interests. The Saudis have an interest in America's 36 million Blacks converting en masse to Islam. The rest of America does not have that interest in common with the Saudis. The Saudis have an interest in having as many Arab Muslims immigrate here as is possible, making our immigration situation even worse.
We have nothing in common with the Saudis other than oil. Other than oil we are opposed to everything they stand for.
Funny, I follow the news all the time and I’ve never heard of this “Israel lobby” thing. He must have made it up.
The closest reference I've ever seen -- and this is so indirect it's still way off -- is some Joshua Lipton guy on Forbes on Fox try to make the case for how great lobbying is for American democracy. (Think of all the pieces a guy needs to be able to put together before that picture comes into focus.) At the end of his ridiculous little spiel he plastered this big, ear-to-ear grin across his face, almost as if it say, "So, you buy that?"
Another panelist, some Quentin Hardy, did not buy it and replied with something like, "Josh can sit there with that big smile all he wants but the fact is..."
My country is America. I'm not Jewish, either. This sure brings out the usual suspects.
The fact is, because American interests have so completely been hijacked by Israeli interests, policies which would benefit America practically must come at a price to Israel, and that is why no one can ever recall you advocating anything that would obviously benefit America. Instead, your every effort is aimed at convincing readers that policies that obviously benefit Israel also benefit America. Belly-aching about the "usual suspects" is about as dead a giveaway as you can get it. Keep it up. It's at least entertaining.
Has anyone ever been rejected from a major government position for being too pro-Israel? Say, spying for Israel, being a US-Israeli dual citizen, serving in the Israeli military, calling for ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, etc.? Is it even conceivable?
Has anyone ever been rejected from a major government position for being too pro-British, too Pro-Swedish, too pro-Italian?
Has anyone ever been rejected from a major government position for being too pro-British, too Pro-Swedish, too pro-Italian?
Would anyone seriously object if they were so rejected?
Has there ever been anyone as openly and obviously pro-any-of-the-above as Israel Firsters are pro-Israel?
The fact is, because American interests have so completely been hijacked by Israeli interests, policies which would benefit America practically must come at a price to Israel,
If I recall correctly, Clinton and GHWB spent a great deal of effort on the "peace process" in order to create a Palestinian state.
US diplomacy of the 90's was very evenhanded during this time period, despite revisionist histories from the paleocon peanut gallery.
Yes, the US became excessively pro-Israel after 911, but that was because Muslims blew up the WTC without any provocation from the US, despite the fact Clinton pushed the peace process, defended Muslim Albania from Christian Serbia and warned Americans not to lash out against Muslims aftert the 1993 WTC bombing.
911 notwithstanding, our insightful paleocons never turn down opportunity to apologize for Arab Muslims and Palestinians and damn Israel and the US for provoking the ever innocent Religion of Peace.
Muslims blew up the WTC without any provocation from the US
LOL, it's a tribute to the American media that people can write something like this without smirking.
We have nothing in common with the Saudis other than oil. Other than oil we are opposed to everything they stand for.
Why are you changing the subject to what countries "stand for"? We're talking about interests. And Saudi interests closely align with American interests - stable Arab governments allowing smooth oil transactions. Israeli interests lie in unstable Arab governments with poor business environment. That is why Zionists (like T99) always support Middle East policy that hurts America. The Zionists' success in Washington DC led directly to 9/11.
I'd say the US gentile obsession with Israel comes from the mistaken belief that if they support and protect Israel (which is an absurd concept considering how independent-minded Jews are), God will give them brownie points, i.e. they can get away with a little more mischief on the side. This reveals an archaic concept of the New Testament God and the fact that the New Testament has superseded the Old Testament (OT), in a legal and spiritual sense. There is absolutely no salvation based on the OT, no matter how offensive or frustrating this may seem to some. These things were widely understood by the church up to the Enlightenment, but since then dimness has set in. I wonder whether the British-Israelism or Anglo-Israelism heresy has something to do with it.
The Zionists' success in Washington DC led directly to 9/11.
Nonsense. In bin Laden's own statement after 9/11 (and in all his previous statements, too), U.S. support of Israel is mentioned only as an afterthought, almost perfuctorily. His main charge against the U.S. was the presence of "infidel" troops in Saudi Arabia, which were there at the behest of the Saudi rulers, if you'll recall. No, on this one, much as I hate to admit it, T99 is right. Bin Laden wanted to lead a global Jihad to re-establish a caliphate and take back all the lands that once belonged to Islam (including Spain and Eastern Europe). He believed that the US, as the sole remaining superpower, was the only thing standing in his way, and that the US was really just a "paper tiger" with no stomach for war. 9/11 was his big attention-grabbing bid for leadership of this dreamed-of global Jihad movement.
The Mideast peace process of the 1990s was the result of the “anti-semites” G.H.W. Bush and James Baker, not any establishment push against the Jewish/Israel lobby, unless you consider Bush First and Baker an “establishment” (I admit that they once were members of an establishment, but by the time they were thrown out they were members of a former establishment). Junior Bush went to school on his dad, and realized that standing up to the Israel Lobby means no reelection, so he truckled to the Lobby, with disastrous consequences. Clinton had to go to great lengths to avoid going to war in the Mideast for the Lobby, and only played that card half heartedly during impeachment. Clinton’s war against Serbia was in part on behalf of the Lobby, but the muslims liked it too so it was a twofer.
Paleos aren’t pro-China. Hell, I was a teenager and China was still a backwater (in 1990) and I was complaining about FDR siding with China over Japan in WW2. Not that I don’t like WW2 movies were we kill the Japs, that is all “good fun” but the Japs weren’t the long term civilization threat that China is, if only because of numbers.
Paleos aren’t pro-Muslim either; note that the Paleos favored Serbia in the war that the “neoliberals” waged against that Christian country. Paleos also are opposed to Muslims in the Western world.
No, Christian superstition in benefits from favoring the chosen people doesn’t really have anything to do with the Israel lobby’s power in the corridors of power as the Christians have no presence there. That superstition serves to prevent any peasant revolt, pitchforks and all you know.
Shalom Anony-mouse:
Well, if the false claim that Paleos aren’t interested or opposed to Chinese spying and influence can be made by you, then it would seem more than fair for Paleos to make the argument that Zionists like you aren’t concerned about Israel spying on the USA. Read the following:
Breaking the Taboo on Israel's Spying Efforts on the United States
By Christopher Ketcham, AlterNet
Posted on March 10, 2009, Printed on March 13, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/130891/
Israel's spying on the U.S., however, is a matter of public record, and neither conspiracy nor theory is needed to present the evidence. When the FBI produces its annual report to Congress concerning "Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage," Israel and its intelligence services often feature prominently as a threat second only to China.
In 2005 the FBI noted, for example, that Israel maintains "an active program to gather proprietary information within the United States." A key Israeli method, said the FBI report, is computer intrusion. In 1996, the Defense Intelligence Service, a branch of the Pentagon, issued a warning that "the collection of scientific intelligence in the United States [is] the third highest priority of Israeli Intelligence after information on its Arab neighbors and information on secret U.S. policies or decisions relating to Israel."
'The other big story is the Pentagon's plan to fasttrack citizenship for immigrants who will fight "America's" wars.'
I remeber reading about this proposal a couple of years ago. A policy paper posted on the CFR website (surprise, surprise). The author gushingly called them 'Freedom Troops' or something similar. The practice of importing and enganing foreign mercenaries to keep local populace in check and stomp on rebellions is not exactly a novel idea.
If I recall correctly, Clinton and GHWB spent a great deal of effort on the "peace process" in order to create a Palestinian state.
US diplomacy of the 90's was very evenhanded during this time period, despite revisionist histories from the paleocon peanut gallery.
Oh give it up. If they really wanted peace so much they'd invade Israel, kick some Israeli ass, partition the country and give the pallies their bit. Just like they did in Kosovo.
Mind you, I'm by no means pro-pallie. "Palestinian" is a nationality invented for the express purpose of continuing the fight against Israel. I'm not at all opposed to Israel playing hardball with the Arabs (I favor "transfer"). I just wish they wouldn't drag other people into their conflict and that jews living abroad would stop interfering in other countries' interests in order to help out their brethren in Israel. (A man can always dream can't he?)
Belly-aching about the "usual suspects" is about as dead a giveaway as you can get it. Keep it up. It's at least entertaining.
I don't think t99 is entertaining at all. Normally I just skip his comments.
Muslims blew up the WTC without any provocation from the US
LOL, it's a tribute to the American media that people can write something like this without smirking.
Please explain what in particular the US did prior to 911 to provoke Muslims?
Clinton spent the final leg of his presidency trying to come up with a final settlement for the Palestinians with Ehud Barak and Arafat, but about a year later the Palestinians were dancing in the street after 3000 Americans were killed.
Junior Bush went to school on his dad, and realized that standing up to the Israel Lobby means no reelection, so he truckled to the Lobby, with disastrous consequences.
Bush lost in '92 because the economy was bad and he broke his pledge not to raise taxes. The Lobby had little to do with it.
Obama didn't pick Freeman or expend any effort on his behalf. Admiral Dennis Blair did.
Steve, if you keep having posts like this, Larry Auster who is viewing your blog from the right, is going to kvetch the hell out of you!!
"Shalom Anony-mouse: "
The snarky internet eqivalent of "Hey, Jewboy!"
Too many a-holes on this site.
Saudi Arabia is one of the most oppressive regimes on earth, but most nations let economics dictate morality.
Indeed. From what I understand, Saudi citizens:
1) Are freer from government invasion into their personal lives (and homes) than U.S. citizens.
2) Pay no income taxes; i.e., don't have a system of institutionalized theft (what sane people call it when others take without asking).
3) Are not subject to conscription.
"Shalom Anony-mouse: "
The snarky internet eqivalent of "Hey, Jewboy!"
Too many a-holes on this site.
Thou shalt never notice the Jews, except to praise them (or point out how bad it is to notice them).
Anonymous testing99 said...
I'm not Jewish, either.
Don't sell yourself short.
"Unfortunately, your countrymen don't seem to care so nothing is going to change."
I've tried to say this before here, but jeez, wake up - there are no "countries" in the West, and haven't been for a long time. Korea is a country. Israel is a country. America, England, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, etc... - these are souks, plantations and bazaars. My "countrymen"? What does that mean? The Mexican dishwasher, the Chaldean nightclub owner, the Japanese dentist, the WASP voter registration activist, the Jew development executive, the German farmer, the Chinese this, the black that, the Hindoo, the Moslem, the Baptist, the Vietnamese, the Hmong, the Somalis, the Armenians, the globe.
It's half amusing, half disheartening to come to Steve's blog and read most people talk about England like it's England of 1380, or Germany like it's Bismarck's era - you know, places run, at least nominally, with their ethnic inhabitants' interests in mind. "France did this" will be the headline and then people rush to rattle off cliches about Frenchmen, as if the ones remaining have anything at all to say about the way the place is run. It's just weird.
Most readers of this blog, from the philosemites to the IQ fetishists to the keyboard racists to the pickup artists to the capitalists to the data crunchers to the antisemites, are yesterday's evolutionary news, no matter their many ideas on what would be sensible educational policy change or how to publish Solzenhitsyn's final book or who the best quarterback in the NFL is.
'the false claim that paleos aren't interested or opposed to Chinese spying and influence can be made by you'
1/ I never said anything about spying.
2/ False claim about paleo non-objections to Chinese paid influence? Just read the comments here.
In bin Laden's own statement after 9/11 (and in all his previous statements, too), U.S. support of Israel is mentioned only as an afterthought, almost perfuctorily.
Israel is literally Bin Laden's first and foremost complaint. It is #1A on his list of complains.
bin Laden's Letter to America
The "Zionist Crusader Alliance" is central to Bin Laden's 1996 declaration of war on the USA.
Declaration of War
But this is not the point. The point is why do any Muslims admire him enough to follow his orders? Why do his words ring true? Where does he get his credibility?
Because Israel's crimes against Palestine are bloody, cruel, and on TV daily. And who is attacking America for its support of these atrocities? No Arab government, not Hamas, not Hezbollah, nobody except Bin Laden.
Israel is quite simply Bin Laden's biggest recruiting tool.
Post a Comment