White Biocentrism

Jonathan Azaziah is absolutely right: Hezbollah did save
the world in 2006. Had they not won, Russia would not
have had the time to rebuild herself, and the world
would have been a very much different place than it
is now. Though it is bad now, it would have been
exponentially worst than it already is.

I would like if I may, offer a little historical
background on that momentous event. Israel's attack
dog, aka, the USA, had been looking for ways to invade
the Lebanon and Syria as early as September 2001 (cf.
Wesley Clark) and have officially declared war on Syria
and Hezbollah in 2003 with the Syria Accountability Act.
The new American obsession with Hezbollah got Seymour
Hersh of The New Yorker, to write a very good article:
"Watching Lebanon, Washington's Interest in Israel's War"
where he reveals:

............... " A Pentagon consultant said that the
Bush White House “has been agitating for some time to
find a reason for a preemptive blow against Hezbollah.

............... If the most dominant military force in
the region—the Israel Defense Forces—can’t pacify a
country like Lebanon, with a population of four million,
you should think carefully about taking that template
to Iran, with strategic depth and a population of
seventy million.

............... According to a Middle East expert with
knowledge of the current thinking of both the Israeli
and the U.S. governments, Israel had devised a plan for
attacking Hezbollah—and shared it with Bush Administration
officials—well before the July 12th kidnappings. “It’s
not that the Israelis had a trap that Hezbollah walked
into,” he said, “but there was a strong feeling in the
White House that sooner or later the Israelis were going
to do it.”

The invasion of the Lebanon by the Zionist entity in July
2006 was part of the plan, which some call 'The New
American Century' but which should really be named 'The
New Jewish Century'. As Wesley Clark and as the Syria
Accountability Act reveal, the goal was, is and remains:
regime change, the reshaping the Middle East, controlled
chaos to bring about one thing and one thing only: Eretz
Israel.

The trigger was the assassination on February 14 2005 of
Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri (who was also a Saudi
citizen...) in an explosion which killed 21 people. In
less than an hour after the explosion, the western and
israeli media unanimously accused Syria, despite there
having been no investigation, no proof, no nothing. And,
despite all the proof that Syria could not have been
behind it. The US-Israeli coalition had envisaged 2
possible cases:

Scenario 1: Syria would refuse to withdraw her peace
keeping force in the Lebanon and in that case the USA
would have invaded the Lebanon and Syria at the same time
(there was a Syrian peace keeping force in the Lebanon
since the Lebanese Civil War. Syria was NOT occupying
the Lebanon: their presence there was as per international
accords, signed and accepted by the entire world).

Scenario 2: Syria would leave the Lebanon and in that
case, Israel would attack the Lebanon, creating the
excuse she needed to invade. Syria withdrew and the
rest is history:

http://mouqawamahmusic.net/ten-years-si ... the-world/

Hassan Nasrallah is an incredibly inspirational leader and his speeches have a very Nationalistic tone to them. Hezbollah's service to a Cause bigger than just Lebanon is one of the things that has kept them alive over past three decades. The wilayat al-faqih is the glue that holds the various Shia groups together and molds them into one group. The IRGC is essentially the Ayatollah's SS troops. Taken from the best and most ideologically sound men in Iranian society they pledge loyality directly to the Ayatollah and not to Iran. Hezbollah is next to the IRGC and works closely with them.

The Hezbollah motto of "don't pray for victory, pray for martyrdom" scares the Jews and their lap dogs. During the 82-2000 struggle Hezbollah fighters were able to create a 1:1 kill ratio with the Israeli army something unheard of in Guerrilla warfare. A trip north for a young Israeli quiet possibly would mean a death sentence.

During the '06 war there were several very memorable battles. 5 Merkava tanks were completely destroyed and 45% of all Merkava's hit by missiles had some form of hull penetration. Most of the dead IDF soldiers were merkava crew members. This prompted Turkey to cancel an order for the tanks. One Hezbollah anti tank gunner shot 12 tanks in what became known as the Merkava Massacre.

One of Hezbollah's greatest moments and Hassan Nasrallah's best speech (IMO) was a previously schedules speech he delivered the afternoon after his oldest son was killed in a gun battle with Israeli Special Forces. His son and his unit ambushed the Jews and essentially wiped them out. During the fight the young Nasrallah, 19, was killed. Hassan Nasrallah gave his intended speech and only after addressed his son's martyrdom. To paraphrase he said that the Zionists were gloating because they were able to kill the Chairman's son. He pointed out that his son did not die in bed, his son was not murdered by a missile while he used his cell phone, his son died while killing them. His son died trying to free his country from the grip of Jewish Occupation. He said he was honored to join all the families who had sacrificed their sons and daughters. He said that now he won't feel embarrassed when he visits them and talks to them. He thanked God for allowing his family to sacrifice alongside everyone else. That speech banded together all the various resistance groups and lead directly to the defeat of the Zionist Occupiers.

That speech and many of HN's speeches and interviews can be found in the book "Voice of Hezbollah."

I know very little about Hezbollah (except what the Jew says; I know all about that). But I think I heard somewhere on the Internet (viz. not a source I know to be reliable) that Hezbollah is vehemently opposed to the so-called „Islamic State“. That would make sense: When IS first broke over the headlines two years ago, my first thought was „Mossad operation“. Still, plausibility is not proof. Is it true?

(Writing as someone who has gone through a crash course in unlearning Jew lies, but understandably focused on Germany, Europe, the War, the „Holocaust“, and related matters—not to mention, the Jews themselves. The Jews just tell too many lies; there is not enough time to unwind every one and verify all facts, not even if you were work 18 hours per day only digging for the truth and „live to 120“ as the Jews put it.)

In the beginning of the Syrian civil war there were a number of videos posted online (www.liveleak.com) which showed sniper teams killing Syrian soldiers using Israeli made FAL rifles. There's exhibit "A" how did these rifles get into the hands of Sunni extremists associated directly with IS and AQ?

Next, in the areas Hezbollah and the IRGC begin to make the biggest gains and to settle the situation down the most the Israeli Air Force (using American made air craft) will target the local leadership for death. Is this to protect their actors or to simply seek revenge? Maybe it is to neutralize these ground commanders who now have the experience of running major military operations against other armies? I feel like that is exhibit "B"

Finally, IS is keeping the governments and military of every potential regional competitor busy trying to neutralize them allowing Israel time to maneuver. After '06 we see that the IDF is great at killing civilians and destroying easy targets but not so good at fighting other armies.

Thanks for the info, Mr. Pringle. My inference was suggested by something much more obvious, at least to me: US created IS by destroying Saddam Hussein. Instant regional power vacuum! The 11 years between the US re-invasion of Iraq and IS declaring a caliphate are very short for such developments, but unfortunately beyond the Twitter attention span. There are other reasons for my aforestated „first thought“, including the stated IS ideology which is self-destructive toward Arab and Muslim interests; but that was the main one: „Saddam would never have let this happen on his watch“.(1,2)

(1. Note, I was under the Jew influence and supported the Iraq War in its early years. That is now matter of much personal guilt on my part; perhaps I will post about it sometime. I wrote an open letter of apology to Saddam Hussein, replying directly to his last letter, issued right before he was hanged, wherein he had urged his followers to forgive those who repent...)

(2. I also admit an ignorance of the subtleties to the Sunni/Shia divide. At least, unlike liberal-egalitarians, I know enough to know that I am ignorant. I mention this because you characterized IS/AQ as „Sunni extremists“; but even given limited knowledge, it seems fairly obvious there are more than two sides to that fight. I say this again with reference to Iraq.)

I have similar thoughts about how Arab nationalism was systematically destroyed to make way for Islamic expansionism.(3) The former can be reasoned with; nationalists just want the best for their own people. The Islamic expansionists cannot be talked to. They cannot be reasoned with. They are not amenable to diplomacy. And since they self-evidently do not care about their own people, they are happy to do the Jew’s dirty work for him. See Europe to-day.

(3. I carefully chose the term „Islamic expansionism“, which I have not seen elsewhere. The intent is to identify Islamic sects which more or less preach a „take over the world“ philosophy, without generally denigrating Islam. I am aware that the late General Otto Ernst Remer, one of my heroes, urged peace and friendship between Europe and Islam; I briefly mentioned more about this in another thread. I will rely on General Remer’s judgment here, because he really knew what he was talking about—whereas most of what I know about Islam itself was told to me by the Jews.)

Apropos the topic, the reason why I asked about IS was to confirm my hunch that if Obama were serious about all his war-frenzy speechifying against IS, then he would promptly ship arms to Hezbollah. They sent the IDF limping away with its tail between its legs; so I think they can handle the job, particularly given that they would be fighting some of the same soldiers anyway. And correct me if I am mistaken, but to my knowledge, Hezbollah has never actually threatened to attack the United States. IS does so every day, right on cue and often with the real or fake removal of heads. So... Why doesn’t US help Hezbollah, Syria, et al. crush a mutual enemy, hmmm? It should not be different than Russia helping Syria fight IS.

Let us review the American plan:

1. Open a power vacuum to allow the initial rise of IS by wrecking and ruining Iraq, which had previously been a bulwark of regional stability in the Middle East.
2. Destabilize Syria, while it is trying to fight IS.
3. Keep enmity for Hezbollah, which is an enemy of IS.
4. Threaten, in substantial essence, to start a war with Russia if Russia bombs IS.
5. Make fiery speeches about how the United States considers total defeat of IS to be the grade-A-number-1 top priority for American national security.

Perhaps if Hezbollah were to destroy IS, it may get another „saved the world“ headline. That, or nuked by US.

At that, I think of the United States as an inverse moral measure: If you want to know who the „good guys“ are, look to whom the U.S. invades, subverts, assassinates, or otherwise attacks with something other than empty words. (It is a corollary to the Jew Test.)

You’re right. Changing tactics made the whole difference in the area.

A so-called “conventional force” has a hard time against an “asymmetrical push.” We’ve seen this happen before in History, namely to Napoleon Bonaparte in Spain and to the Russians in Afghanistan —our own stubbornness also cost us 45,000 lives in Viet Nam.

After the guerrilla-type restructuring of Hezbollah, the CIA and to the State of Israel, arguably two sides of the same coin, endeavored to generate civil wars in Syria (which was successful) and in Iran (which failed). Unfortunately —and we know who will be held responsible some day—, those war-rousing attempts are spilling into our cities and to those of Europe.

“No, Mr. President and the Media: we’re not all stupid!”