Some Observations on Israel, Iran, Russia, Islam, and Christianity

Some Observations on Israel, Iran, Russia, Islam, and Christianity

Thomas Allen

The following are some comments on the Israel-Iran War, especially concerning Islam, Christianity, Zionism, Jews, and Russia.

1– Israel knows that it cannot defeat Iran on its own. It planned for the Jewish lobby, the Jewish-controlled media, neoconservative Zionists, and the Christian Zionists to draw the United States into its war with Iran. That plan has worked.

2– A major problem that Muslim countries have in the Middle East is that their religious disagreements prevent them from uniting against Israel. Israel has used these disagreements to its advantage.

On the other hand, Zionists have no such problem. Christian Zionists, Jewish Zionists, and atheist Zionists unite against the Muslims. They value Zionism above their religion. Indeed, for many of them, Zionism is their religion.

3– Zionists and other pro-Israel people rant endlessly about the vileness of Islam and Muslims. Other than their claim that such vileness is innate in Islam and the Koran, they never try to discover the cause of Muslim hostility toward and hatred of Jews and, particularly, Israel. To them, Muslim hostility and hatred have nothing to do with Jews terrorizing the Palestinians and stealing their land.

After the Balfour Declaration (1917), Jews began moving to Palestine and terrorizing the Palestinians, both Christians and Muslims, and taking their land. (In 1920, 500,000 Muslims, 70,000 Christians, and 60,000 Jews lived in Palestine. In 1940, the population was 948,000, 121,000, and 464,000, respectively.) Before the Balfour Declaration, Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived peacefully in Palestine. 

Moreover, Muslim hostility and hatred of Israel and Jews have nothing to do with the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians. Nor do they have anything to do with the Suez Canal Crisis of 1956 or Israel’s attacks against its neighbors in 1967 (the Six-Day War), 1973 (the Yom Kippur War), 1982 (the 1982 Lebanon War), and 2006 (the Israel–Hezbollah War), and the almost continuous offensive assaults against its neighbors since 1948.

Furthermore, Muslim hostility and hatred of Israel, Jews, and the United States have nothing to do with Israel getting its vassal, the United States, to destroy Iraq and Syria for Greater Israel. Now, Israel is trying to get the United States to destroy Iran. (As a result of its subservient support of Israel, many Muslims consider America the Great Satan and chant, “Death to America.” Without the succor of its slave, the United States, Israel would collapse.)

All these ignored issues have much more to do with Muslims’ loathing Israel and the Jews than does the Koran or anything innate in Islam.

4– Many people who believe that Islam is an innately vile religion ignore many non-Christians viewing Christianity as an innately vile religion — and for many of the same reasons. Before Muslims arrived in the Middle East and North Africa, these regions were predominantly Christian, among whom Jews lived. After the arrival of Muslims, the population of Christians and Jews significantly declined over the years. The implication is that Muslims either killed them or drove them out of the Middle East and North Africa. What is often overlooked is that many converted to Islam to avoid paying the jizya, a tax levied on non-Muslims.

Islam is criticized for using the sword to force its religion on others. Once Christianity became the state religion under Constantine, Christians not only used the sword to convert others, but they also used it to settle theological disputes. The Catholic Church became notorious for using the sword against Christian sects that did not adhere to what the Catholic Church declared to be orthodoxy. An early example was the wars between the Trinitarians, who were usually the aggressors, and the Arians. Later, the Catholic Church used the sword to oppress Christian sects, such as the Waldensians, who refused to recognize the Pope’s authority. Perhaps the bloodiest conflict of Christian intolerance was the Thirty Years' War. 

Moreover, in Christendom, Jews were often persecuted. At various times, many European countries forbade Jews from living in them.

Before Bush the Younger destroyed Iraq for Israel, Iraq had a thriving Christian population. Now, the Christians who remain are struggling to survive.

Does this mean that the Bible and Christians are vile? (The Bible does contain stories where God orders his people to kill and genocide others.) If judged by the same standard that people who consider Islam innately vile, it seems to imply that Christianity is innately vile.

Furthermore, Islam has a much higher opinion of Jesus, who is the central figure of Christianity, than does Judaism. According to Islam’s holy book, the Koran, Jesus is a great prophet, second only to Mohammad. According to the Jewish holy book, the Talmud, Jesses is a blasphemer, a bastard, and a sorcerer. 

5– Iran is as much of a threat to the United States as Iraq was in 2001 — none. Like Iraq, Iran is mostly a threat posed by the propaganda of the Jewish and Zionist-controlled media, federal bureaucrats, and politicians of both parties. 

6– If Iran falls, Russia and China are in great danger. Iran serves as a buffer to Russia because it prevents the CIA from sending jihadists into Russia’s Muslim provinces. Also, if the United States gain control of Iran’s oilfields, China could lose a major supplier of its energy. How long will Russia and China stand by and let Israel and the United States have their way in Iran?

Russia and China may have prevented this war if they had a public defense pact with Iran and had placed it under their nuclear umbrella. However, it is unlikely that this action would have stopped Israel, but it may have slowed, if not prevented, the United States’ entry into the war. Now, Russia and China may have to enter the war directly.

7– Some wonder why Putin signaled his approval of an Israeli attack on Iran by announcing that Russia’s treaty with Iran did not include military support. 

What happened to Iran’s air defense? Russia had provided Iran with antiaircraft missiles. Did Russia prevent Iran from using them? Were they faulty, or were they inadequate for the job?

Putin and Russia seem to be continuing the extinct Soviet Union’s policy of aiding Israel surreptitiously by undermining its ostensible Muslim allies when they warred against Israel. President Sadat of Egypt realized this betrayal when he expelled Soviet agents from his country in 1972, several months before the Yom Kippur War.

The Soviet Union, which Jews founded, aided Jews in Palestine before 1948 and in Israel afterward. During the Zionists’ struggle to drive the British and later the Palestinians from Palestine, the Soviet Union, through Czechoslovakia, was a major supplier of arms to the Jews in Palestine. 

Furthermore, it joined the United States in partitioning Palestine and giving a large portion of it to the Jews. With Soviet-supplied weapons and aircraft, Israel won its war for independence. Later, Ben Gurion would thank the Soviet Union for providing Israel with the arms that it needed to win independence and for its support of Zionism in the United Nations.

President Truman gave Israel de facto recognition on May 15, 1948, the day that Great Britain’s mandate in Palestine expired. However, the Soviet Union extended de jure recognition to Israel on May 17, 1948, and, thus, became the first state to recognize Israel fully and officially. 

To win favor and influence over Israel’s Arab neighbors, the Soviet government instituted a campaign to suppress some petty Jews in the Soviet bloc. Also, it openly denounced Israel and supplied weaponry to Israel’s Arab neighbors. Later, the Soviet Union would use its influence over Egypt, Syria, and other Arab countries to aid Israel.

8– Iran is one of the seven Muslim countries that Israel and the Zionists have identified for destruction. Five have been destroyed: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, and Sudan. Iran and Saudi Arabia remain. Israel’s updated list now includes Pakistan. Turkey may soon be added; a small part of it falls in Greater Israel. Destroying Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and possibly Turkey for Israel will be an extremely expensive chore for the United States. Additionally, Egypt must be included since all of Egypt east of the Nile belongs to Greater Israel. Likewise, Jordan will need to be destroyed because it is also part of Greater Israel. China will be the real winner of such an undertaking because America will be so exhausted from these wars that it will fall into China’s hands as easily as an overripe plum.

9– In “US State Department Spokeswoman Says Israel Is Greater Than America,” Caitlin Johnstone makes some interesting and informative remarks about the Israel-Iran War (https://caitlinjohnstone.com.au/2025/06/23/us-state-department-spokeswoman-says-israel-is-greater-than-america/):

Top Ten dumbest things we’re being asked to believe about Iran:

1. That the Iranians want to be bombed.

2. That the guy bombing Iran wants peace.

3. That regime change interventionism is a swell idea this time.

4. That anyone who doesn’t want war with Iran hates Jews.

5. That this time the government and the media are telling us the truth about an American war.

6. That this time the neocons are smart and correct.

7. That bombing Iran makes it LESS likely to try to obtain nukes.

8. That Iran is trying to assassinate the US president when all US presidents have the same foreign policy.

9. That Iran (a country that never starts wars) cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons, but Israel (a country that starts wars constantly) can.

10. That attacking Iran benefits Americans.

10– Paul Craig Roberts writes, “Iran has done nothing to America. It has not attacked us, sanctioned us, frozen our bank reserves, forbidden trade with us, assassinated any of our leaders. These are things that Washington has done to Iran. Why? Because Netanyahu told us to.” (https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2025/06/19/is-trumps-constituency-netanyahu-or-maga-america/)

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles. 

Trump, Israel, and Iran

Trump, Israel, and Iran

Thomas Allen

The following are some observations on the Israel-Iran War and Trump’s response. Also, some comments on Christian Zionists are presented.

1 – Hal Turner, a radio commentator, gives a good analogy of the Israel-United States-Middle East relationship. Israel is a little bully. Because it does not like the kid next door, it punches the kid in the nose. In response, the kid hits Israel back. Then Israel runs to its big brother, crying, “He hit me! He hit me!” As a result of Israel’s crying, its subservient, compliant big brother, the United States, beats up the kid next door.

How much of the terrorism associated with Middle Eastern Muslim countries is merely a reaction to Israel bullying its neighbors and the US protecting the bully and meddling in the affairs of these countries, even to the extent of regime change, as with Iraq, Syria, and Libya?

2 – With his war against Iran, Trump has betrayed a large number of his MAGA base. Because Trump promised to end the Ukraine-Russia War and the Israel-Gaza War, many people voted for him. Not only has he failed to end those wars, but he has also started another one — or at least allied himself with Israel after Israel started another one.

One group of the MAGA base supports Trump in his war against Iran. They are mostly Christian Zionists. They want a global nuclear war because they believe such a war is necessary for Christ’s return. Since most Christian Zionists are premillennialists who believe in the pretribulation rapture, they believe that they will not have to endure the global nuclear war. They believe that they will enjoy the holocaust from a safe distance. Although this war will cause a massive slaughter of “God’s Chosen People,” whom most of the Christian Zionists worship, they look forward to this holocaust of the Jews. So much for their Christian compassion.

3– Trump ran as an antiestablishment candidate. Most of his MAGA base believed him and voted for him because they thought that he was an enemy of the establishment: neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, progressives, liberals, and most federal bureaucrats and politicians. Now, he has betrayed them. He appears to have sold out to the establishment, the military-security-industrial complex, and neoconservatives (many of whom are Jews, “God’s Chosen People,” and all of whom are Zionists). They wanted Trump to attack Iran for Israel, and he delivered. Thus, Trump again betrays his MAGA base, except for the Christian Zionists.

Christian Zionists believe that the primary, if not the sole, purpose of the United States is to serve and protect Israel and “God’s Chosen People.” To be sacrificed on the altar of Zionism is the United States' raison d'être. Such a sacrifice is the greatest of all honors. America has no higher purpose.

4– Trump seems to have become a neoconservative, who are Zionist frontmen, and an establishment conservative, who take care of the military-security-industrial complex. (Turning to the Democrats offers no escape. Not only are most Democrat leaders Zionists and protect the military-security-industrial complex, but they are also much more fascistic, promote queerdom, seek to destroy America with nonwhite aliens, and want to genocide the White race.)

5– Occasionally, Trump gives the illusion that he is not Israel’s lapdog by vigorously objecting to Israel’s actions. He has done so recently when Israel and Iran temporarily ignored his order for a ceasefire. (Does Trump really believe that he can give Israel orders? If so, he does not understand the world’s power structure: “God’s Chosen People” are in charge.) However, he never follows through with any sanctions on Israel. Is he like all Presidents since Kennedy and trembles in fear before Israel? If any US president becomes unruly, Israel will beat them into submission as it did with Kennedy.

(Apparently, such punishment was in President Johnson’s mind when he let Israel get away with trying to sink the USS Liberty during the Six-Day War. Instead of penalizing Israel for its sneak attack on the USS Liberty, he threatened the surviving crew with severe penalties if they mentioned the attack.)

6– Did Trump call for a ceasefire at the behest of Israel? Israel had expended most of its antimissile missiles and needed to replenish its stock and repair its missile defense system. It needed a ceasefire to restock its antimissiles and rebuild its missile defenses and armed forces. After that, it plans to continue its war with Iran. In the past, it has used ceasefires to rebuild its armed forces to continue fighting.

Furthermore, Iran had severely damaged Israeli infrastructure. Israel needed Trump to stop the war to save Israel from having to sue for peace before Iran destroyed it. Trump seems to be delivering. Will he use the ceasefire to bring about a peace that forces Israel to abandon its dream of Greater Israel? Or will he use it to give Israel time to repair its damage and rebuild its armed forces so that it can continue its quest for Greater Israel?

Some pro-Israel-anti-Iran folks believe that Iran agreed to the ceasefire so that it could rebuild its defenses and military. After which, it plans to attack Israel. They seem to discount Israel being the aggressor who initiated the war with its sneak attack on Iran. Also, they seem to discount the damage that Iran has inflicted on Israel, which seems greater than what Israel has inflicted on it.

7– Even if Trump wants to free himself from being an Israeli lackey, he may find such an effort impossible. He has surrounded himself with Zionists, many of whom are fervent Christian Zionists. They believe that the purpose of America and Christians is to sacrifice themselves for Israel and “God’s Chosen People,” the Jews.

8– Trump says that he does not want regime change in Iran because the change would lead to chaos. At least, he has learned one important lesson from Bush’s overthrow of Iraq; Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden’s overthrow of Afghanistan; Obama’s overthrow of Libya; and Obama, Trump, and Biden’s overthrow of Syria.

Nevertheless, Israel wants an Iranian regime change. It wants a compliant government that it can control — like the governments of the United States, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Will Trump prevail, or will Israel prevail?

9– Even if Trump successfully destroyed Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities, he has only eliminated Israel’s ostensible excuse for war against Iran. What Trump is overlooking is that Iran’s nuclear weapons program is just an excuse that Israel is using for its war. Israel wants to subordinate Iran to its will, and the nuclear weapons program is just an excuse for the war to achieve that goal.

If Trump has been successful in destroying Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Israel will find another reason for its war against Iran. A possible reason is that Trump failed to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons program. This excuse is one that the Zionist and Jewish-controlled media are currently promoting. Another is that Israel has to continue the war to prevent Iran from rebuilding its nuclear weapons program. Or Israel could come up with an excuse that is not related to nuclear weapons. Israel is not yet through with Iran.

As the old saying goes, “Israel has played Trump like a two-bit fiddle.” Perhaps Trump is realizing that Israel has used him, and that is why he is angry. Even if the United States destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities, Israel will find another excuse for war against Iran.

10– The reason that no signs of radiation have been detected at the three sites that Trump bombed is that they were empty — thus, the explanation that Iran had removed any uranium stored there before the bombing. Also, according to Scott Ritter, plans for these bombings were initiated during the Biden administration. Since any nuclear material at these sites had been removed long before the bombing, what was the purpose of the bombing? The United States and Israel must have known that they were empty. (If not, their intelligence agencies are the worst in the world and should be abolished.) Thus, the purpose of the bombing was for a political theatrical show; consequently, Trump risked American lives for a show. (See “Donald Trump Has Joined Joe Biden In The Ranks Of War Criminals” by Chuck Baldwin.)

11– Since Israel and Iran have an uncontrollable urge to fight each other, perhaps Trump should let them. If he does, he should take the divine approach of showing no partiality. Therefore, he would cease all support of Israel and remove all sanctions on Iran.

Alternatively, Netanyahu and Ali Khamenei fight each other in a no-rules bare-knuckles boxing match. The one who beats the other to death wins. As a result, the loser pays the victor a token prize of a thousand ounces of gold. Then, the people of both countries return to living their lives without molestation or threat of war from the other country. (It would also be helpful if warmongering propaganda were forbidden.) Using this approach saves many lives and prevents much destruction of bodies and property. Moreover, the two principal warmongers put their lives on the line instead of sending others to die for their vanity.

12– Trump carrying the United States to war for Israel again shows the American electorate that elections for federal offices mean nothing, especially in the realm of foreign policy. As long as the Establishment controls the Democratic and Republican parties, America can never be made great again.

It matters not whom Americans elect as President, be he a Democrat or a Republican, the Prime Minister of Israel is always the de facto President of the United States. Consequently, the foreign policy of the United States remains the same, especially in the Middle East and concerning Israel.

13– Democrats who criticize Trump for bombing Iran are hypocrites. When Obama bombed Libya to initiate regime change without notifying Congress, they did not object because he failed to notify them before the bombing. Their objection to Trump’s bombing is based on politics and not principle.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Revisionist History

Revisionist History

Thomas Allen

In response to a comment that I made on “MSNBC’s Revisionist History About JD Vance and America’s Failed Wars,” The New American, by Selwyn Duke, July 22, 2024, (https://thenewamerican.com/us/msnbcs-revisionist-history-about-jd-vance-and-americas-failed-wars/#comment-6515624670), I had an interesting discussion with “Confused” on revisionist history. (I have changed his pseudonym to protect his ignorance or stupidity — whichever the case may be.)

Duke’s misleading statements on revision history prompted my comment. My comment was:

A revisionist history is a history that disagrees with the standard orthodox establishment history. It is a historical account based on facts or a perspective that differs from the standard orthodox establishment history, which emphasizes a particular narrative or agenda instead of objective facts. That is, the primary purpose of the standard orthodox establishment history is to declare that the victors had the moral high ground and were not at fault or to advance an agenda of the establishment. More often than not, revisionist history is closer to the truth than is the standard orthodox establishment history. 

(This comment is a quotation from “Another Discussion with the Imbecile” by Thomas Allen.) The essence of revision history is that it significantly contradicts standard orthodox establishment history.

Duke may be the cause of some of Confused’s confusion about revisionist history. He writes that Alexander Nazaryan, a left-winger, condemned JD Vance over who launched America’s failed wars. Nazaryan attacked Vance and claimed that Vance was accusing Democrats in general and Biden in particular for the death of Americans in the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars, although Vance hardly mentioned these wars and did not blame Democrats for them. Nazaryan identified the Republican Party as the party of war because of Bush the Younger’s war with Iraq. Yet, Nazaryan ignored the wars in which Democrats led the countries: World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. Duke called Nazaryan commentary revisionist history. Nazaryan’s historical account may be revisionist history, but that does not mean that all revisionist historians are left-wingers.

Confused maintains that only left-wingers write revisionist histories; right-wingers do not write revisionist histories. However, since progressives, liberals, and neoconservatives write most standard orthodox establishment history, they have little need to write revisionist history. Consequently, right-wingers write most revisionist history.

Among the right-wing writers of revisionist history are Dennis Cuddy, G. Edward Griffin, Jim Marrs, Jack Mohr, Eustace Mullins, Murray Rothbard, Antony Sutton, Nesta Webster, Clyde Wilson, and even Pat Buchanan. (This list is only a minute sample of right-wingers who have written revisionist histories.) Because these writers have written revisionist history, Confused considers them to be left-wingers, even communists. Following are some examples of revision history.

Standard orthodox establishment history claims that the French Revolution began as a spontaneous grassroots revolt of repressed peasants and proletarians against an oppressive aristocracy, monarchy, and clergy. Revisionist historians argue that the French Revolution was planned years earlier and was guided by elites and secret societies. (See “The French Revolution: Part I: The Foundation” by Thomas Allen.)

Standard orthodox establishment history claims that slavery was the cause, even the sole cause, of Lincoln’s War. The North fought to free the slaves, and the South fought to preserve and even to expand slavery.

Revisionist historians argue that slavery was a minor, even an insignificant issue, until about halfway through the war. Tariffs were the primary cause of secession for the Lower South, and the denial of the constitutional right of a State to secede was the primary cause of secession for the Upper South. (Until 1861, most people, including and especially New Englanders, claimed that States had a right to secede. However, once New Englanders and their allies in New York and the Upper Midwest gained control of the US government, States no longer had a constitutional right to secede.) Thus, the South fought against Northern exploitation, and the North fought to continue to exploit the South. Further, the South fought to preserve self-government and not to protect slavery. Most Southerners fought to repeal an invading hoard; if the Yankees had not invaded the South, no war would have occurred.

Standard orthodox establishment history claims that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack. Revisionist historians say that it was a surprise attack for the people at Pearl Harbor. However, it was not a surprise to Roosevelt and his inner circle. They knew about it before it happened. Not only did they let it happen, but Roosevelt facilitated the attack. (See “World War II” by Thomas Allen.)

Robert Welch, who was a co-founder of the John Birch Society, asserted that President Eisenhower was a Communist sympathizer and an agent of the Communist conspiracy. Standard orthodox establishment historians disagree with Welch.

Standard orthodox establishment history claims that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone assassin. Moreover, no conspiracy was involved in the assassination of President Kennedy. Revisionist historians argue that Oswald did not act alone; others were involved in the assassination, which made it a conspiracy. Furthermore, Oswald may not have been the actual assassin. (For more on the Kennedy assassination, see “A Credibility Test” by Thomas Allen.)

One left-wing revisionist history that has become partially, if not wholly, accepted as standard orthodox establishment history is that slaves in the Catholic Latin colonies were treated better than in the Protestant colonies of North America. This history is the opposite of the truth. Slaves were treated better in Protestant North America.

Another slavery-related left-wing revisionist history has become standard orthodox establishment history. That revisionist history was that slavery was the reason for Lincoln’s War. Many Republican leaders, who were the progressives of that day, promoted this revisionist history. Now, this explanation for the war is the standard orthodox establishment history.

Confused is like Imbecile; any history with which he disagrees is revisionist history. The standard definition of revisionist history, which he rejects, is any explanation of a historical event that disagrees significantly with the standard orthodox establishment explanation. (For more on revisionist history, see https://tcallenco.weebly.com/history.html.)

Discussion in Comments

Me: A revisionist history is a history that disagrees with the standard orthodox establishment history. It is a historical account based on facts or a perspective that differs from the standard orthodox establishment history, which emphasizes a particular narrative or agenda instead of objective facts. That is, the primary purpose of the standard orthodox establishment history is to declare that the victors had the moral high ground and were not at fault or to advance an agenda of the establishment. More often than not, revisionist history is closer to the truth than is the standard orthodox establishment history. https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2024/05/another-discussion-with-imbecile.html

Confused: That’s not correct. “Revisionist history” has a negative connotation and is usually applied to leftist manipulation of history.

There are facts relating to events that have happened. Actual history involves revealing and expressing those facts.

Me: If you are correct and I am wrong, then the official explanation of the Kennedy assassination and 9-11 are accurate, and the revisionists are wrong. Likewise, only revisionist historians claim that the Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election. Also, the conspiratorial history that the JBS [John Birch Society] spews out is revisionist history, and, therefore, it has a negative connotation and is usually applied to manipulate history if you are correct. Most revisionist historians do a better job of discovering and explaining facts relating to historical events than do the standard orthodox establishment historians, whom you seem to prefer to believe.

Confused: Your above analysis is incorrect and illogical.

The problem is semantics. You’re defining “revisionist history” in a very anomalous way. The people you’re describing are conspiracy theorists, who may be right or wrong. Here is the definition of “revisionism”: “1 : a movement in revolutionary Marxian socialism favoring an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary spirit.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revisionism

By calling correct historical interpretations “revisionism” YOU are unwittingly demonizing them by associating them with a negative label. You can do that if you wish, but it’s misguided and unwise.

Please stop hurting the cause.

Me: Your definition is for “revisionism” and not for “revisionist history.” Nevertheless, if you are correct, then people who question the official history of the Kennedy assassination and 9-11 and present an alternative explanation are Marxist socialists.

Confused: Again, that’s illogical. It’s only “revisionist history” if it’s an incorrect portrayal of history put forth to deceive and warp people’s conception of reality. So if the 9/11 doubters are correct, or at least if they’re questioning the official story in good faith, it’s not revisionist history.

Me: I have concluded that you are like Imbecile; any history with which you disagree is revisionist history. The standard definition of revisionist history, which you reject, is any explanation of a historical event that disagrees with the standard orthodox establishment explanation of that event. JBS’s conspiratorial explanation of various historical events is revisionist history, just as a communist class-warfare explanation of the same event is revisionist history.

Confused: Go bake some cookies, hon.

END

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More historical articles.

A Letter: Al Qaeda and 9/11

A Letter: Al Qaeda and 9/11

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 2005 responding to an article in the Middle American News.]

    In your May 2005 issue, you state on page 9, “Kreis is parroting the nutty theories of the lunatic fringe about 9/11, denying al Qaeda was behind the attacks.” If al Qaeda were behind 9/11, then it had control of the U.S. government.
    Was it al Qaeda that prevented the FBI agents from investigating Moslems training to fly? Was it al Qaeda that gave suspected and known Moslem terrorists visas to come to the United States? How did al Qaeda get the CIA to train Moslems in terrorism? How did al Qaeda manage to switch the Boeing 747 that left Boston to a Boeing 737 that hit the south tower of the World Trade Center? Was al Qaeda the one who planted explosives in the twin towers and building number seven so that these buildings could be brought down?  How was al Qaeda able to bring down a steel structure where the steel was coated with fireproof material with a fire that probably did not exceed 800°F? Was it al Qaeda that got the EPA to tell New Yorkers that the air was safe to breathe when it was filled with tons of fine particulate and toxic and radioactive material? Why would al Qaeda want to bring down building number seven, which apparently contained evidence that pointed away from al Qaeda? Was it al Qaeda that ordered the quick destruction of the crime scene to prevent independent investigators from finding evidence that would conflict with the Bush administration’s and your conspiracy theory? What hold does al Qaeda have over the U.S. government to prevent it from releasing videotapes, aircraft parts, and other evidence that would support the government’s theory that al Qaeda did it? Did al Qaeda control the CIA so that it could get CIA funding and training?
    How could an al Qaeda pilot, who could not even fly a single engine training aircraft, fly a jet airliner, put that airliner in a rapidly spiraling descent, and then level the aircraft to fly just above the ground into the first floor of the Pentagon — a maneuver that would be difficult for an experienced pilot? The airliner that hit Pentagon was coming from the east and could have avoided this difficult maneuver if it were flown into the east side. Why did not al Qaeda fly the aircraft into the east side where Rumsfeld was instead of undertaking a very difficult maneuver to avoid killing Rumsfeld? (If al Qaeda had as much control over the U.S. government as you insinuate, then it would have certainly known where Rumsfeld’s office was and that he was in his office on 9/11.) Furthermore, how could the airliner flown by al Qaeda have left a hole in the Pentagon smaller than the fuselage, and much smaller than the wingspan, of the airliner that supposedly hit the Pentagon?
    Does al Qaeda operate under different laws of chemistry and physics than other people? How could they create a fire at the Pentagon to burn hot enough to vaporize aluminum (more than 4000°F) yet cool enough not to cremate human bodies (less than 1200°F)?
    Was it al Qaeda that sent most of the fighters stationed in the East to a training exercise in the West on September 11? Was it al Qaeda that created the CIA exercise on September 11 simulating a hijacked airliner flying into a building in Washington? Was it al Qaeda that created the other hijack training exercises that occurred on September 11 to confuse the FAA, NORAD, and others?
    How did six or more of the al Qaeda hijackers manage to survive crashing airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? With the country on high alert, how did they evade capture and flee the country?
    Kreis and many others claim that al Qaeda did not control the U.S. government and, therefore, could not and did not do these things. Conversely, you claim that al Qaeda did these things and, therefore, must have controlled the U.S. government.
    Cui bono! Who benefitted from 9/11? Was it the Moslems? So far, they have had two of their countries, Afghanistan and Iraq, destroyed, turned into radioactive waste dumps, and victimized by U.S. imperialism.
    The principal beneficiaries have been Israel, the rapture cult, the imperialists, the oil industry, the military-industrial complex, and the statists.  They all wanted war with the Moslem world. 9/11 gave Bush the excuse to give them that war.
    Israel got one of its staunchest enemies destroyed and now has a large U.S. army stationed indefinitely in the Middle East to protect Israeli interests.
    The rapture cult believes that a world war must start in the Middle East to bring Christ back to Earth. (Of course, most of the rapture cultists do not believe that they will be around to enjoy the fruits of their labor as they will have been raptured away before things get too bad.)
    The imperialists (like the abolitionists of the antebellum South era) get to remake someone else’s country in their own image. They get to remake the Middle East into a liberal, democratic, humanistic society without having to endure the destruction and devastation that they bring to these people to achieve their dream. At least their idea is noble [in their own minds], and that is all that really matters.
    The oil industry has gained control of Iraqi oil and the rights to the pipeline to be built through Afghanistan.
    The military-industrial complex has made a fortune from destroying Iraq and will make a fortune in rebuilding it — nearly all will be paid for by the U.S. taxpayers.
    The statists have turned the United States into a police state with the “PATRIOT” act, Homeland Security, and similar laws that have gutted what little remained of the Bill of Rights in the name of protecting us from Moslem terrorists. (If Bush were correct in asserting that the terrorists attacked us because they hated our freedom, then we should now be living in peace. In the name of protecting us from terrorism, Bush has destroyed our freedoms. Actually, Bush was correct if you realize that the terrorists to whom he refers are not in the Middle East, but are in Washington.)
    Everyone of importance in the Bush administration, or connected with it, belongs to one or more of these aforementioned groups.
    Al Qaeda had little to gain from 9/11 while these aforementioned groups have gained enormous wealth and power from 9/11. To believe that al Qaeda was the mastermind of 9/11 is the really nutty lunatic theory. This theory has nothing to support it but assertions by the open-borders, unlimited immigration, globalist, “diversity is strength,” outsourcing Bush administration.

    [Editor’s note: Joyce Reilly, may she forever be remembered, former air force captain and hostess of The Power Hour, which is still an excellent radio program, had the ultimate litmus test of a person’s credibility: If the person believes the official US government’s conspiracy theory about 9/11 or even pretends to believe it, then that person has no credibility. Another curiosity of 9/11 is that people who are convinced that the government always lies have made one exception to this belief: the government has told the truth about 9/11. This proves Hitler correct when he said, “The great masses of people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one — especially if it is repeated over and over.” Concurring, Joseph Goebbels said, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”]

Copyright © 2005, 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More historical articles.