Saladin & King Richard

The Moslem knights of the opposition armies during the medieval crusades were primarily led by the Egyptian General “Saladin”, properly pronounced “Salahadin.” His full name was Salah al-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub (1137-1193 AD), the founder of the Ayyubid dynasty, first Sultan of Egypt and Syria, and later the Sultan of Mesopotamia, Yemen, and parts of North Africa.

Christian contemporary chroniclers and historians noted the “noble and chivalrous” behavior of Saladin. Despite being the nemesis of the Crusaders,  won deep respect from many of them, including King Richard the Lionheart of England, and throughout Europe and among Templars worldwide he became a celebrated example of the principles of chivalry.

During one of the most important battles of the Crusades, at which Saladin was defeated by Richard the Lionheart, when King Richard lost his horse, Saladin graciously sent him two replacement horses as a personal gift, to enable his worthy opponent to continue leading the Knights Templar. Touched by Saladin’s pious honor, King Richard proposed that his own sister, Joan of England, Queen of Sicily, should marry Saladin’s brother, and offered that Jerusalem (for which they had both fought) could be their wedding gift.


Despite the differences in genuine religious beliefs, the Moslem Saladin earned great respect from Christian noble lords and Templars. King Richard once praised Saladin as a “Great Prince,” saying that he was without a doubt the greatest and most powerful leader in the Islamic world. Saladin reciprocated by declaring that there was not a more honorable Christian lord than Richard.

The historical record documents that in 1191 AD, when a Christian woman’s 3 month old baby had been stolen from her camp and sold on the market, the Franks urged her to approach General Saladin in person to seek help. In response to the humanitarian request, Saladin used his own money to buy the child back, personally returned the baby to its mother, and ordered a horse to bring her and the baby back to her camp.

It was also reported that one time when King Richard was wounded in battle, Saladin offered the services of his personal physician, a noble show of great favor, since Moslem medicine was renowned as the best in the Western world at the time.


Is Zionism Racism?

“Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination,” reads UN General Assembly Resolution 3379. The measure was adopted 40 years ago, on Nov. 10, 1975, and the majority of the international community backed it. 72 countries voted for the resolution, with just 35 opposed (and 32 abstentions).

Although little-known in the US today (it is remarkable how effectively the US and its allies have rewritten history in their favor), UN 3379. “Elimination of all forms of racial discrimination,” made an indelible imprint on history.

The geographic distribution of the vote was telling. The countries that voted against the resolution were primarily colonial powers and/or their allies. The countries that voted for it were overwhelmingly formerly colonized and anti-imperialist nations.


The resolution also cited two other little-known measures passed by international organizations in the same year:

  • the Assembly of the Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity’s resolution 77, which ruled “that the racist regime in occupied Palestine and the racist regimes in Zimbabwe and South Africa have a common imperialist origin, forming a whole and having the same racist structure”; and
  • the Political Declaration and Strategy to Strengthen International Peace and Security and to Intensify Solidarity and Mutual Assistance among Non-Aligned Countries, which called Zionism a “racist and imperialist ideology.”

When the resolution was passed, Israeli Ambassador to the UN Chaim Herzog — who later became Israel’s sixth president, and the father of Isaac Herzog, the head of Israel’s opposition — famously tore up the text at the podium.

Herzog claimed the measure was “based on hatred, falsehood, and arrogance,” insisting it was “devoid of any moral or legal value.” Still today, supporters of Israel argue UN GA Res. 3379 was an anomalous product of anti-Semitism. In reality, however, the resolution was the result of international condemnation of the illegal military occupation to which Palestinians had been subjected since 1967 and the apartheid-like conditions the indigenous Arab population had lived under as second-class citizens of an ethnocratic state since 1948.

In 1991, resolution 3379 was repealed for two primary reasons: One, the Soviet bloc, which helped pass the resolution, had collapsed; and two, Israel and the US demanded that it be revoked or they refused to participate in the Madrid Peace Conference.

At the UN on Nov. 11, US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power and Secretary of State John Kerry eulogized the late Herzog and forcefully condemned the resolution on its 40th anniversary.

John Kerry smeared Res. 3379 as “very anti-Semitic and against colonialism.”

In his 2,500-word statement, Kerry mentioned Palestinians just once, and only then as an extension of Israelis.

Sec. Kerry insisted “we will do all in our power to prevent the hijacking of this great forum for malicious intent” — a fascinating claim!

“BDS is very anti-Semitic and America will not stand for it.” -Sec. John Kerry


Samson In The 21st Century

“Q. I have recently come across mention of “The Samson Option”. Would such action even be possible in light of prophecy? I can’t imagine it would, given that the inevitable outcome appears to be the complete destruction of both Israel and whomever she would attack in such an operation.

A. You’re right. The Samson Option is a reference to Samson, who after he was captured by the Philistines, caused an arena to collapse on Him and them, killing everyone including himself. (Judges 16:23-30) Modern Israel developed this option with the idea that never again would they allow themselves to be forced into the situation they faced at Masada in 70 AD where suicide was the only alternative to slavery. Instead they would launch weapons that would kill everyone including themselves.

Before God will allow the Israelis to exercise this option, He will intervene and save them. (One example of this will be the coming Battle of Ezekiel 38.) He’ll do this because He promised that after the 2nd re-gathering, they would never again be uprooted from the Land (Isaiah 11:11, Amos 9:14-15). The first re-gathering took place after the Babylonian captivity, and the 2nd officially began in 1948.”

That is a quotation from

Israel refuses to confirm or deny it has nuclear weapons or to describe how it would use them, an official policy of nuclear ambiguity, also known as “nuclear opacity.” This has made it difficult for anyone outside the Israeli government to describe the country’s true nuclear policy definitively, while still allowing Israel to influence the perceptions, strategies and actions of other governments.

Israel having nuclear weapons is, and has been known for quite some while now; however with the world superpower, America, on their side there is virtually nothing that can be done about it, America, trying to rid countries of nuclear weapons even ignores that crucial fact – one that could effect the whole middle east.

Deterrence Doctrine

Although nuclear weapons were viewed as the ultimate guarantor of Israeli security, as early as the 1960s the country avoided building its military around them, instead pursuing absolute conventional superiority so as to forestall a last resort nuclear engagement. The original conception of the Samson Option was only as deterrence. According to United States journalist Seymour Hersh and Israeli historian Avner Cohen, Israeli leaders like David Ben-Gurion (for which the airport in Tel-Aviv is named), Shimon Peres, Levi Eshkol and Moshe Dayan coined the phrase in the mid-1960s. They named it after the biblical figure Samson, who pushed apart the pillars of a Philistine temple, bringing down the roof and killing himself and thousands of Philistines who had captured him, mutilated him, and gathered to see him further humiliated in chains. They contrasted it with the ancient siege of Masada where 936 Jewish Sicarii committed mass suicide rather than be defeated and enslaved by the Romans.

As far as the quotation from at the top, if the Jews really ever would really ever follow through with their nuclear threat, they would have no god intervening for them. Realistically, that is the most selfish thing ever. That’s all the Israeli Jews and European Jews of today share. Biblically, selfishness caused them all of their problems, and so it does today.


9-11: What Happened?

“In October 2001, just one month after 9/11, two articles appeared on the web which provided the first clues to what really happened. One was Carol Valentine’s “Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS”. This article drew attention to the possibility of remote control of a large jet aircraft. That this technology exists is public knowledge.  It was developed by Northrop Grumman for use in Global Hawk, an automated American military jet with the wingspan of a Boeing 737.  (For further details about Global Hawk see Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS.) Since it is possible to control a Boeing 757 or 767 by means of remote control, might not the jets which hit the Twin Towers and the Pentagon have been remotely controlled?  In which case there would be no need to maintain the improbable hypothesis that the four jets were simultaneously hijacked by nineteen on-board Arab terrorists.

The other article discussing the possibility of remote control of Boeing aircraft was Joe Vialls’s “Home Run: Electronically Hijacking the World Trade Center Attack Aircraft”.

In the mid-seventies … two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced [Research] Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft.  [This technology] … allowed specialist ground controllers to … take absolute control of [a hijacked plane’s] computerized flight control system by remote means.  From that point onwards, regardless of the wishes of the hijackers or flight deck crew, the hijacked aircraft could be recovered and landed automatically at an airport of choice, with no more difficulty than flying a radio-controlled model plane.  … [This was] the system used to facilitate direct ground control of the four aircraft used in the high-profile attacks on New York and Washington on 11th September 2001. — Joe Vialls: Home Run: Electronically Hijacking the World Trade Center Attack Aircraft

Remote control technology is also used with the Predator system (shown at right).

But there’s a problem with this theory: Although the technology for the remote control of a Boeing jetliner certainly exists, and could be installed (if it is not already standard) on four Boeings, their hijacking by remote control could not be rehearsed in advance, and there was always the possibility that the pilots might find some way to regain manual control. Considering the stakes involved in an operation which was intended to kill thousands of U.S. citizens, there could be no room for error. What was needed was a fool-proof plan, and the remote hijacking of four planes is a scenario with too many possibilities for something to go wrong. But this does not mean that remote-controlled planes were not involved, only that the hijacking by remote control of four commercial jetliners is not the most likely explanation of what happened.

As regards the Pentagon, although it has been obvious since the French website appeared in February 2002 that whatever hit the Pentagon was not a Boeing 757, no adequate explanation of that attack was provided until two-and-a-half years after it occurred. The evidence was contradictory. Many witnesses claim to have seen a large plane (which, under the influence of the official story) they later claimed was an American Airlines passenger jet. And lamp poles were knocked over by whatever it was that flew at nearly ground level. But, as the photographic evidence shows, whatever hit the Pentagon was definitely not a Boeing 757.

In March 2004 Leonard Spencer published an article, The Attack on The Pentagon, which finally provided an explanation consistent with witness accounts, air traffic controller reports and photographic evidence.

Only those who planned and carried out the attacks of 9/11 know for sure what actually happened. But as in any forensic investigation one has to frame theories as to what actually happened and then test those theories against the available evidence (in this case principally the photographic evidence, but also evidence from other sources).

One theory is that given in the official story. In Section 2 and in Section 3 this theory was shown to be completely inconsistent with the available evidence. So we must look for an alternative theory. It should be clearly understood that theorizing about what happened on 9/11 is entirely reasonable, and theories considered cannot be dismissed as “conspiracy theories”, since the formulation of theories is what any investigator does when trying to solve a crime. Unfortunately the Bush administration has done everything it can possibly do to prevent any theory from being considered except its own ridiculous story.<!– (For more on how ridiculous it is see Gerard Holmgren’s Debunking Conspiracy Theorists.)–>

A theory consistent with the evidence was revealed in March 2002 to Carol Valentine by an informant (as recounted in 9-11: The Flight of the Bumble Planes). A plot was hatched, not by Arabs, but by so-called Americans (agents of the civilian “state security and intelligence” agencies and bureaus such as the CIA, top-ranking officers within the U.S. Air Force and high-level officials within the U.S. administration), perhaps with Israeli (Mossad) involvement:

  1. to take control of four civilian airliners
  2. to carry out attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon causing huge loss of life
  3. to make it appear that these airliners were used to carry out the attacks
  4. to eliminate the passengers on the airliners who would not be involved in the operation except as reluctant witnesses
  5. to blame these attacks on “Arab terrorists” and to use this as a pretext to launch military campaigns against “enemies of America” in the Middle East and in Asia, the real aim being to get control of their oil and mineral resources.”


That is a quote from


That strikes some people as a “no” because they want to believe it was Moslem terrorists that did the whole massacre of 9-11, that it had absolutely nothing to do with Mossad or Zionist Jews.

“America and our friends and allies join with all those who want peace and security in the world, and we stand together to win the war against terrorism.” (from George W. Bushes address to America about 9-11)

The “Moslem terrorist” story has to be true or the systematic narrative that created the war on terrorists, hatred for Moslems, etc. would be myth, and the American government that maintains economic satisfaction with war on terror, would be taken away.

It is for certain airplanes, regardless of size, did not cause this explosion and from probable evidence Ashkenazi Jews or Mossad was involved one way or the other. The buildings fell straight down-as if explosives were detonated in the basement, not like they were hit at the top-or middle, and Ashkenazi Jews had taken vacation that day.

Some may argue because there were a few “Jews” in the building at the time.  Jews are not above suicide or being in the wrong place at the wrong time, especially if it makes an easier route to the “Holy Land” for millions of Jews around the world so Palestinians have to be taken out of the picture-which needs to be done for the greater Israel.

No one is ever going to know exactly what happened on that day, 9-11, but I think people are already  coming very close.