O'Reilly and Ahmadinejad: We must wipe them off the map

By JC Garrett
Online Journal Contributing Writer
May 2, 2008

On Wednesday, I heard Bill O'Reilly tell actor/activist Matthew Modine that we must kill all the "Islamic fundamentalists" in the world -- wipe them off the face of the Earth -- in order to protect America.

Modine asked O'Reilly how he would win the "war on terror".

O'Reilly replied, "You use every weapon you have to kill as many Islamic fundamentalists as you can, and then bring them to their knees, the same way we won WWII."

An incredulous Modine asked O'Reilly if he was advocating something akin to the nuclear annihilation of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Answering with a question, O'Reilly asked if Modine would have ordered the nuclear attacks had he been in President Harry Truman's shoes, saying, "He was fighting to protect America. And he wiped out the enemy, just as we have to wipe out the Islamic fundamentalists . . ."

How, pray tell, does that differ in any way with the words of Iranian President Ahmadinejad about Israel that have been so vehemently denounced by O'Reilly and his far-right compatriots? They have raised non-stop holy hell over a comment made in a speech by Ahmadinejad in which he purportedly called for Israel to be "wiped off the map." This translation of his words has been hotly disputed, and the consensus of linguists and experts is that what Ahmadinejad actually called for was the fall of the Israeli "Zionist" regime, and the rise of a democratic government in which Palestinians participate in free elections.

University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Juan Cole, says the statement should be translated as "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem must [vanish from] the page of time."

Professor Cole explains that, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian". Rather, "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."

Cole then comes to the real point of the matter: "What is really going on here is an old trick of the warmongers. Which is that you equate hurtful statements of your enemy with an actual military threat, and make a weak and vulnerable enemy look like a strong, menacing foe. Then no one can complain when you pounce on the enemy and reduce his country to flames and rubble."

Other experts agree with Cole.

Ahmadinejad himself states that his words were misinterpreted and wildly exaggerated, saying, "There is no new policy, they created a lot of hue and cry over that. It is clear what we say: Let the Palestinians participate in free elections and they will say what they want."

So in that context, what Ahmadinejad was actually saying was that he was against the Israeli political system and the regime in power, and was stating his belief that Palestinians are suffering an injustice. That sounds an awful lot like the Bush administration's view that the elected government of Iran should be replaced with one that is friendly to U.S. interests.

But let's leave all that aside. Let's pretend that Ahmadinejad really did call for Israel to be wiped off the map. We'll even presume that he advocates the total eradication and genocide of Israeli Jews. That is inarguably despicable. What is the difference between that and the slaughter endorsed by Bill O'Reilly? In either case, the underlying cause of conflict boils down to religious and cultural differences. Israeli Jews and American Christians don't like Muslims, and Muslims don't like Jews and Christians. This is, of course a gross generalization because there are many in each religion who do not feel that way. But historically and now, religious differences are a cause, if not the main cause, of almost every war fought by mankind.

Racism and religious bigotry is alive and well in the U.S. as evidenced by this disgusting assertion made by a member of a right-wing group, which has the nerve to call itself the "Founding Fathers Party," on their website: "Once again I ask, why does the rest of the world accept this turd spewing 'religion' as valid? Wipe them off the face of the Earth. The only good mongrel muslim [sic] is a dead one."

Similar sentiments can be found on countless "conservative" sites and can be heard on talk-radio everyday. That is the unedited, extremely politically incorrect version of the views of people like Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck. It is the basic platform of politicians like Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, who revealed his true colors when he publicly advocated bombing Muslim holy sites as a "deterrent" to attacks on the United States: "If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina. That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do."

Of course, Mecca and Medina happen to be located in Saudi Arabia, a country considered to be a U.S. ally. But all that matters to Tancredo is that Muslims live there.

O'Reilly called for wiping out an entire religious denomination -- one he labeled as "Islamic fundamentalists." We have here in the U.S. several Christian and Jewish denominations and sects whose membership includes a significant number of "fundamentalists" who endorsed and continue to support the occupation of Iraq and are now salivating over starting a war with Iran because they detest anything and everything "Muslim." We have clergy who preach that Islam is a false religion, or an evil religion, and say that it is our duty and God's purpose to rid the world of Muslims.

George W. Bush had the unspeakable arrogance to label three entire countries as an "Axis of Evil." How does one even begin to explain how ignorant and immoral that is? Whole countries proclaimed to be evil, worthless, subhuman. We're not talking about terrorists who actually come to America with an intent to harm us. We're talking about people spread out all over the world, in countless countries. And we're talking about killing them not because they represent a credible, serious threat to us, but because they don't like us. Because they don't support our "interests." Imagine another nation invading America and overthrowing our government because we don't like them. Not because we have bombed them, not because we have enslaved them, but because we don't agree with them. Where is the righteousness in that?

We are stuck in a perpetual juvenile game of "my God's better than your God." When will we realize that it's the same God? When will we accept the fact that the only difference is the wrapping paper that we artificially package Him in? And when will we come to understand that God does not belong only to certain nations, and that evil does not respect the invisible boundaries of national borders? Only when we accept that we do not own God and realize that He is not to be used as a justification for killing each other will we ever know true peace.

JC Garrett is a freelance writer and constitutional scholar from the piney-woods of East Texas. He apologizes to the entire world that the great Lone Star State could have produced the monstrosity currently occupying the Oval Office.

Israeli President: Nuclear Iran would be 'nightmare'

Israel must remain sole Mideast nuclear power
Tuesday May 06, 2008 10:11 by Saed Bannoura - IMEMC News

The Israeli President, Shimon Peres, stated Monday that "Iran is a danger not only for Israel but also for the rest of the world", adding that if Iran were to get a nuclear weapon, it would be a "nightmare".

Israel's nuclear production facility in Dimona

In his talk, he tacitly acknowledged that Israel is a nuclear power - something that was long denied by the Israeli state, but has recently been discreetly mentioned by Israeli leaders on a number of occasions.


Peres has long been called the 'father of Israel's bomb', having obtained help from the French government in the 1950s to build Israel's nuclear reactor at Dimona. Since building the reactor, the Israeli government has maintained a policy of "nuclear ambiguity" and has never signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Most estimates put the number of nuclear bombs in Israel's arsenal at about 100, which would make it the sixth-largest nuclear power in the world, if it were to come out of the closet and openly admit that it has nuclear weapons.


The nuclear reactor at Dimona was called a "textile factory" by the Israeli government, even after Israeli engineer Mordechai Vanunu was imprisoned for eighteen years in solidarity confinement for exposing the nuclear production facility to a British newspaper. Said Peres in 2004, "Well, textiles are out of business, people are going for high-tech today. But the textile business achieved its basic aim as a deterrent."


On Monday, he said, "Nobody is threatening Iran," he said. "On the other hand, Iran is threatening to wipe Israel off the map." Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, has never actually threatened Israel, but has stated that Israel, through its own actions, is destined to disappear.


Disarmament advocates say that it is past time for Israel to stop hiding its nuclear capability, because Israel is not uder threat, and the presence of an Israeli nuclear stockpile, real or perceived, is destabilizing because it promotes an arms race among Arab nations.


"For us it really is a matter of to be or not to be. It is not a simple scope. And everyone that knows Israel knows that Israel is so far from being aggressive," said Peres in 2004.

Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace says, "All nations that have nuclear weapons think that they are responsible and it is the other guys who are irresponsible." Cirincione advocates a "nuclear free Middle East", in which Israel would disarm, and countries like Iran and Syria would thus be discouraged from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Feds launch 'Gestapo raid' over raw milk

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

A rally has been set for tomorrow in front of the magistrate's office in Mt. Holly, Pa., in support of a Mennonite farmer who has brought the wrath of the government on himself for selling raw milk and other products – an act government prosecutors say violates a number of regulations.

That's when the next court hearing is scheduled for Mark Nolt, a Pennsylvania farmer who turned in his state permit to sell raw milk because it didn't allow for the sale of the other products he offered.

"They swooped in ... like a bunch of Vikings, handcuffed me and stole $30,000 worth of my milk, cheese and butter," he told the New York Daily News.

His case is just an example of what the government is trying to do to those who believe – based on medical results – that raw milk is better for them than the processed milk available in most grocery stores, according to Nolt's supporters.

Processed milk, many believe, leads to clogged arteries, strokes and heart attacks.

According to reports published by the Weston A. Price Foundation, results of a study by the Medical Research Council in the United Kingdom revealed only one percent of the subjects in an ongoing lifestyle study of 5,000 men suffered heart attacks – if they drank full-fat milk and ate butter rather than margarine.

"We learned ... that [the] study collected data on 5,000 British men between the ages of 45 and 59 for a period of 10 years. Of those that drank at least a pint of whole milk a day, only one percent suffered heart attacks!" the foundation report said. "Some researchers are already claiming the difference is due to a healthier lifestyle on the part of the milk and butter consumers. Others, however, think that milk and butter may have some yet undiscovered benefits."

Another article in the British medical journal Lancet also noted that children who consumed "farm milk," that is, raw, whole, unprocessed milk, had lower levels of asthma and hay fever.

"Researchers examined the history of allergy, asthma and 'atopic sensitization' or skin problems in 812 children, 319 of whom had grown up with a 'regular exposure to a farming environment' including the consumption of 'farm milk,' that is, raw, whole, unprocessed milk. The remaining group of 493 non-farming children acted as a control. Frequency of asthma was reduced from 11 percent found in the control group to one percent among the farming-exposed children. Similarly, hay fever occurred in only three percent of the farming-exposed children, compared with 13 percent of the controls, and atopic sensitization occurred in 12 percent of the farming group and in 29 percent of the controls," the foundation reported.

According to a blog report on the Cumberland County case in Pennsylvania, Nolt had been under threat of arrest for months, and authorities came for him on April 25.

Jonas Stoltzfus, a fellow farmer and member of the Church of the Brethren, was asked to be a spokesman for Nolt, and confirmed, "Six state troopers and Bill Chirdon of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture trespassed onto his property, and stole $20,000-$250,000 of his product and equipment."

Stoltzfus reported Nolt turned in his state permit to sell raw milk "because it did not cover all the products he was selling. he felt he was being dishonest selling stuff that was not covered by the permit."

Stoltzfus said authorities told Nolt people had gotten sick from eating his food, "but no one ever came forward and no proof was ever offered."

"This is a Gestapo raid," Stoltzfus told the blog report, "complete with state troopers, raiding a hard-working farmer selling milk to friends and customers."

The Daily News reported the farmer's customers were enraged.

"My heart is pounding. I can't believe what a G-- d--- police state this is," one Brooklyn customer told the newspaper. "I gave him $100 last week for a huge delivery of stuff, including raw cream that I planned on using to make cream puffs."

Nolt told the newspaper he didn't feel bound by the government's limits on selling milk.

"The government doesn't have the right to dictate what I eat, and never will," he told the paper.

Stoltzfus compared Nolt to "that little black lady in Alabama who wouldn't go to the back of the bus."

"Mark believes it is his right to sell, according to the constitution, just like it was Rosa Park's right to sit wherever she wanted on the bus," he said.

A blogger who operates under the name The Complete Patient reported the government, in the form of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, had descended on Nolt's 100-acre farm already in 2007.

"Nolt contends that the regulations have not been approved by the legislature and shouldn't apply to him because he is selling directly to consumers, via private contracts that are outside the purview of the state, making a privilege out of a right he believes he has – the right to private contracts," the blogger wrote.

Taaron Meikle, president of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, said Nolt's case has the highest profile right now because of his arrest and pending court case.

"We have a lot of consumers who are drinking raw milk, because of the health benefits," she told WND. "What is happening is truly upsetting.

"Basically, what's happening is farmers are saying they don't want this raw milk permit because it only applies to milk and hard cheeses, not selling butter or yogurt," she said.

"[The government] says it is trying to protect the consumer, but the reality is that consumers are very well informed. They are not making a decision based on ignorance," she said.

She noted the campaign that has been launched called Real Milk by the Weston A. Price Foundation, providing information about milk, its benefits, and any dangers there are.

She said what consumers need to do is get organized and write letters, becoming activists on the issue if they want to avoid processed milk from cows that are genetically altered or fed genetically altered grains.

A case with some similarities also is going on in California, where federal agents have interrogated employees of Organic Pastures Dairy Co. about its sales of raw milk for pet food.

"FDA has gone on the record as 'hating raw milk' in any form," Mark McAfee, president of Organic Pastures, said. "If Organic Pastures is doing something illegal, all FDA needs to do is come and tell us and we will make the necessary changes to our labels and procedures."

Jody N. told WND that Nolt's customers "are in outrage, because they have private contracts with this farmer and their food was stolen."