Windows and Doors

Windows and Doors


Mohammed El Baradei a Stooge?

posted by Brad Hirschfield

WASHINGTON (JTA) — The director of the U.S. Jewish foreign policy umbrella called Mohammed ElBaradei, the opposition leader emerging from the Egyptian ferment, a “stooge of Iran.”
Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice-president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, accused ElBaradei of covering up Iran’s true nuclear weaponization capacities while he directed the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog.
“He is a stooge of Iran, and I don’t use the term lightly,” Hoenlein said in an online recorded interview with Yeshiva World News on the Egyptian crisis. “He fronted for them, he distorted the reports.”

Whether he is correct or not, and why, if he is, Hoenlein shared this assessment only with a fiercely right-wing, religious sectarian press outlet are all important questions. The latter question speaks to the issue faced by all leaders speaking out in the midst of a crisis i.e. whether to use unfolding events to affirm already held opinions and consolidate existing constituencies or to use such events as opportunities to consider new possibilities and create new alliances.
It seems that Mr. Hoenline has chosen the former over the latter, but that doesn’t mean his assessment is necessarily wrong. Mohamamed ElBaradei’s behavior when he directed the IAEA has been debated for years. Did he provide cover for Iran’s nuclear weapons aspirations or did he faithfully report and even retard those aspirations?
Whatever the answer to those questions may be, ElBaradei is certainly emerging as a real contender to lead Egypt through the transition away from Hosni Mubarak’s regime – a transition which seems increasingly inevitable. Given that, the more important questions should be about the ways in which he, or whatever other leadership emerges, can be most constructively engaged.
There is no question that if/when Mubarak falls, whatever government comes next will be less friendly to Israel. That does not mean however, that peace will not be possible. This is a moment which calls for clear-eyed realism to be sure, but it also calls for embracing reality rather than simply bemoaning it.



  • Joel

    Without learning lessons from past, Obama gambles that anti-American Islamist government allied with Iran won’t emerge from the chaos.
    When polled recently, 59% of Egyptians said they backed the Islamists and only 27% favored modernizers. There is no good policy for the United States regarding the uprising in Egypt but the Obama administration may be adopting something close to the worst option.
    This is its first real international crisis. And it seems to be adopting a policy that, while somewhat balanced, is pushing the Egyptian regime out of power. The situation could not be more dangerous and might be the biggest disaster for the region and Western interests since the Iranian revolution three decades ago.
    Experts and news media seem to be overwhelmingly optimistic, just as they generally were in Iran’s case. Wishful thinking is to some extent replacing serious analysis. Indeed, the alternative outcome is barely presented: This could lead to an Islamist Egypt–if not now, then in several years.
    What’s puzzling here is that a lot of the enthusiasm is based on points like saying that the demonstrators are leaderless and spontaneous. But that’s precisely the situation where someone who does have leaders, is well organized, and knows precisely what they want takes over.
    Look at Tunisia. The elite stepped in with the support of the army and put in a coalition of leadership, including both old elements and oppositionists. We don’t know what will happen but there is a reasonable hope of stability and democracy. This is not the situation in Egypt where the elite seems to have lost confidence and the army seems passive.
    Can Omar Suleiman, long-time head of intelligence, as vice-president and former Air Force chief (the job Mubarak himself used to have) Ahmed Shafiq as prime minister stabilize the situation? Perhaps. He is an able man. But to have the man who has organized repression running the country is not exactly a step toward libertarian democracy.
    There are two basic possibilities: the regime will stabilize (with or without Mubarak) or power will be up for grabs.
    Now, here are the precedents for the latter situation: Remember the Iranian revolution when all sorts of people poured out into the streets to demand freedom? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is now president.
    Remember the Beirut spring when people poured out into the streets to demand freedom? Hizbullah is now running Lebanon.
    Remember the democracy among the Palestinians and free elections? Hamas is now running the Gaza Strip.
    Remember democracy in Algeria? Tens of thousands of people were killed in the ensuing civil war.
    It doesn’t have to be that way but the precedents are pretty daunting.
    What did Egyptians tell the Pew poll recently when asked whether they liked “modernizers” or “Islamists”? Islamists: 59%; Modernizers: 27%. Now maybe they will vote for a Westernized guy in a suit who promises a liberal democracy but do you want to bet the Middle East on it? Here’s the problem.
    On one hand, everyone knows that President Hosni Mubarak’s government, based on the regime that has been running Egypt since the morning of July 23, 1952, is a dictatorship with a great deal of corruption and repression.
    This Egyptian government has generally been a good ally of the United States, yet has let Washington down at times. For example, the Mubarak government has continued to purvey anti-American propaganda to its people; held back on solving the Israel-Palestinian conflict (it did not endorse the 2000 Clinton plan, though I have good sources saying Mubarak said later he regretted that decision); has not taken a strong public stance on pressuring Iran; and so on.
    For a long time, it was said that Egypt was the most important US ally in the Arabic-speaking world. There is truth in this but it has been less true lately, though due more to passivity in foreign policy than to hostility.
    Clearly, though, Egypt is an American ally generally, and its loss to an anti-American government would be a tremendous defeat for the United States. Moreover, a populist and radical nationalist–much less an Islamist–government could reignite the Arab-Israel conflict and cost tens of thousands of lives.
    The US’s gamble
    So the United States has a stake in the survival of the regime, if not so much that of Mubarak personally or the succession of his son, Gamal. This means that US policy should put an emphasis on the regime’s survival.
    The regime might be better off without the Mubaraks, since it can argue it is making a fresh start and will gain political capital from getting rid of the hated dictator.
    Given the weakness of designated successor, Gamal Mubarak, who is probably too weak to deal with the situation, the regime might well be a lot better off.
    On the other hand, the United States wants to show that it supports reform and democracy, believing that this will make it more popular among the masses in the Arab world as well as being the “right” and “American” thing to do. Also, if the revolution does win, the thought is, it is more likely to be friendly to America if the United States shows in advance its support for change.
    Finally, the “pro-democracy” approach is based on the belief that Egypt might well produce a moderate, democratic, pro-Western state that will then be more able to resist an Islamist challenge. Perhaps the Islamists can be incorporated into this system.
    Perhaps, some say (and it is a very loud voice in the American mass media) that the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t really a threat at all.
    So, in this point of view, US policy should favor the forces of change.
    Of course, it is possible to mix these two positions and that is what President Obama is trying to do.
    Thus, Obama said, “I’ve always said to [Mubarak] that making sure that they are moving forward on reform–political reform, economic reform–is absolutely critical to the long-term well-being of Egypt, and you can see these pent-up frustrations that are being displayed on the streets …
    “Violence is not the answer in solving these problems in Egypt, so the government has to be careful about not resorting to violence and the people on the streets have to be careful about not resorting to violence. I think that it is very important that people have mechanisms in order to express legitimate grievances. As I said in my State of the Union speech, there’s certain core values that we believe in as Americans that we believe are universal: freedom of speech, freedom of expression–people being able to use social networking or any other mechanisms to communicate with each other and express their concerns.”
    On paper, this is an ideal policy: Mubarak should reform; the opposition should not use violence; and everything will turn out all right. Again, this is the perfect policy in theory, and I’m not being sarcastic at all here.
    Unfortunately, it has little to do with reality.
    For if the regime does what Obama wants it to do, it will fall. And what is going to replace it? And by his lack of support–his language goes further than it might have done–the president is demoralizing an ally.
    And it is all very well to believe idealistically that even if Egyptians are longing to be free, one has to define what “free” means to them. Also, the ruler who emerges is likely to be from the best organized, disciplined group. People in Russia in 1917 were yearning to be free also and they got the Bolsheviks.
    In Iran, where people are yearning to be free, the Obama administration did nothing.
    No matter what the United States says or does at this point, it is not going to reap the gratitude of millions of Egyptians as a liberator. For the new anti-regime leaders will blame America for its past support of Mubarak, opposition to Islamism, backing of Israel, cultural influence, incidents of alleged imperialism, and for not being Muslim.
    If anyone thinks the only problem is Israel, they understand nothing.
    This is not the first time this kind of problem has come up and it is revealing and amazing that the precedents are not being fully explained. The most obvious is Iran in 1978-1979. At that time, as I wrote in my book Paved with Good Intentions: The American Experience and Iran, the US strategy was to do precisely what Obama is doing now: announce support for the government but press it to make reforms. The shah did not go to repression partly because he didn’t have US support. The revolution built up and the regime fell. The result wasn’t too good.
    There is a second part of this story also.
    Experts on television and consulting with the government assured everyone that the revolution would be moderate, the Islamists couldn’t win, and even if they did, this new leadership could be dealt with. So either Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini couldn’t triumph–Islamists running a country, what a laugh!–or he couldn’t really mean what he said. That didn’t turn out too well either.
    Even more forgotten is that, regarding Egypt, that’s how the whole thing started! Back in 1952, as I wrote in my book, The Arab States and the Palestine Conflict, US policymakers supported–don’t exaggerate this, it was not a US-engineered coup but they were favorable–to an army takeover.
    The idea was that the officers would be friendly to the United States, hostile to the USSR and communism, and more likely to enjoy mass support.
    In other words, policymakers and experts are endorsing a strategy today that has led to two of the biggest disasters in the history of US Middle East policy. And now it is even worse, since we have these precedents and particularly the point about what happens when Islamists take power.
    There is no organized moderate group in Egypt. Even the most important past such organization, the Kifaya movement, has already been taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood. Since 2007, its leader has been Abdel Wahhab al-Messiri, a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood and a virulent anti-Semite.
    Muhammad ElBaradei, leader of the reformist movement, makes the following argument against my analysis: “Mubarak has convinced the United States and Europe that they only have a choice between two options–either they accept this authoritarian regime, or Egypt will fall into the hands of the likes of bin Laden’s al-Qaida. Of course, that is not exactly true. Mubarak uses the specter of Islamist terror to prevent a third way: the country’s democratization. But Washington needs to know that the support of a repressive leadership only creates the appearance of stability.
    In truth, it promotes the radicalization of the people.”
    This is a reasonable formulation. But one might also say that nothing would promote the radicalization of the people more than having a radical regime. Even ElBaradei says that if he were to be president, he would recognize Hamas as ruler of the Gaza Strip and end all sanctions against it.
    That is not to say that there aren’t good, moderate, pro-democratic people in Egypt but they have little power, money, or organization. Indeed, Egypt is the only Arab country where many of the reformers went over to the Islamists believing–I think quite wrongly–that they could control the Islamists and dominate them once the alliance got into power.
    Nothing would make me happier than to say that the United States should give full support for reform, to cheer on the insurgents without reservation. But unfortunately, that is neither the most honest analysis nor the one required by US interests. In my book, The Long War for Freedom, I expressed my strong sympathy for the liberal reformers but also the many reasons why they are unlikely to win and cannot compete very well with the Islamists.
    I have pointed out that the Brotherhood’s new leader sounds quite like al- Qaida and has called for war on both Israel and America.
    And here is Rajab Hilal Hamida, a member of the Brotherhood in Egypt’s parliament, who proves that you don’t have to be moderate to run in elections: “From my point of view, bin Ladin, al-Zawahiri and al-Zarqawi are not terrorists in the sense accepted by some. I support all their activities, since they are a thorn in the side of the Americans and the Zionists … [On the other hand,] he who kills Muslim citizens is neither a jihad fighter nor a terrorist, but a criminal murderer. We must call things by their proper names!” A study of the Brotherhood members of Egypt’s parliament shows how radical they have been in their speeches and proposals.
    They want an Islamist radical state, ruled by Shari’a and at war with Israel and the United States.
    Then it is also being said that the Brotherhood is not so popular in Egypt. Then why did they get 20 percent of the vote in an election when they were repressed and cheated? This was not just some protest vote because voters had the option of voting for secular reformers and very few of them did.
    The mass media is full of “experts” who also argue that the Brotherhood is not involved in terrorism. Well, partly true. It supports terrorism against Americans in Iraq and against Israelis, especially backing Hamas. In major cases of terrorism in Egypt–for example the assassination of Farag Fouda and the attempting killing of Naguib Mahfouz–Brotherhood clerics were involved in inciting the violence beforehand and applauding it afterward.
    The deeper question is: why does the Brotherhood not engage in violence in Egypt? The answer is not that it is moderate but that it has felt the time was not ripe. Knowing that it would be crushed by the government, and its leaders sent to concentration camps and tortured or even executed, as happened under Gamal Abdel Nasser in the 1950s and 1960s, is a deterrent. It is no accident that Hamas and Hizbullah–unrestrained by weak governments–engaged in violent terrorism while the Muslim Brotherhood, facing strong and determined regimes in Egypt and Jordan, did not.
    Having said all of this, US influence on these events, already rejected by Egypt’s government, is minimal. It is morally good to speak about freedom and seem to support the protesters but also quite dangerous and will not reap the gratitude of the Egyptian masses in the future. After all, aside from the likely radicalism of their leaders, a revolutionary regime would be hostile toward the United States since America would be blamed for supporting the Egyptian dictatorship for decades. President Obama will not charm them into moderation.
    The Egyptian elite wants to save itself and if they have to dump Mubarak to do so–as we saw in Tunisia–the armed forces and the rest will do so. But if the regime itself falls, creating a vacuum, that is going to be a very bad outcome. If I believed that something better could emerge that would be stable and greatly benefit Egyptians, I’d be for that.
    Yet is that really the case? Consider this point: Egypt’s resources and capital are limited. There aren’t enough jobs or land or wealth. How would a new regime deal with these problems and mobilize popular support? One route would be to embark on a decades-long development program to make the desert green, etc. Yet with so much competition, where would the money come from? How could Egypt try to gain markets already held by China, for example? More likely is that a government would win support through demagoguery: blame America, blame the West, blame Israel, and proclaim that Islam is the answer. That’s how it has been in the Middle East in too many places. In two cases–Lebanon and the Gaza Strip–democracy (though other factors were also involved) has produced anti-democratic Islamist regimes that endorse terrorism and are allied to Iran and Syria.
    Is America ready to bet that Egypt will be different? And on what evidentiary basis would that be done? The emphasis for US policy, then, should be put on supporting the Egyptian regime generally, whatever rhetoric is made about reforms. The rulers in Cairo should have no doubt that the United States is behind them.
    If it is necessary to change leadership or make concessions, that is something the US government can encourage behind the scenes.
    But Obama’s rhetoric–the exact opposite of what it was during the upheavals in Iran which he should have supported–seems dangerously reminiscent of President Jimmy Carter in 1978 regarding Iran.
    He has made it sound–by wording and nuance, if not by intention–that Washington no longer backs the Egyptian government.
    And that government has even said so publicly.
    Without the confidence to resist this upheaval, the Egyptian system could collapse, leaving a vacuum that is not going to be filled by friendly leaders.
    That is potentially disastrous for the United States and the Middle East. There will be many who will say that an anti-American Islamist government allied with Iran and ready to restart war with Israel “cannot” emerge. That’s a pretty big risk to take on the word of those who have been so often wrong in the past.

  • nnmnns

    I promise to be a lot more succinct than Joel, who seems to want us to continue the short term stay-in-bed-with-dictators policy that’s undercut us for decades. And since the cold war is long over we don’t need to stay in bed with dictators.
    What we do need is to be on good enough terms with the government of Egypt, whatever it turns out to be, that our ships can use the Suez Canal. And of course we need a strong enough government of Egypt that the Suez is protected.
    Beyond that, our interests in the government of Egypt should be to support one, preferably a secular one, that reflects the will of its people.
    Of course when I say “our” I mean US citizens’ interests. If your country is, say, Israel your interests may be different but we are not Israel and we need to keep firmly in mind that our interests come first and Israel, like any other country, is way secondary.
    And clearly our interests include not being hated by the majority of citizens in the Middle East and elsewhere.

  • Rick

    It’s no coincidence that major revolutions against Western backed governments have occurred under weak American presidents. The Iranian revolution against the Shah happened on Jimmy Carter’s watch. The current violence in Tunisia and Egypt is taking place under Obama. And the timing is quite interesting. Revolts which coincided with a new opposition congress almost suggest that they were scheduled for a time when Obama would be at his politically weakest.
    Additionally the 2010 defeats would have indicated to the Iranian regime that they might only have a 2 year window in which to act before Obama is replaced by an unknown, but probably more conservative politician. A “Now or Never” moment. The Iranian Revolution might never have happened under Reagan. But Carter’s weakness, left wing politics and contempt for the very notion of defending American interests made it possible. Similarly despite attempts by some Bush advisers to take credit for Tunisia and Egypt, it is unlikely that they would have taken place on Bush’s watch. Not because the Bush administration was so omnipotent, but because it had regional credibility. The general perception was that the Bush Administration was on alert and supportive of allies. That is not at all the regional perception of the Obama Administration which doesn’t seem to know what an ally is.
    Obama’s mistreatment of the UK, Israel and Honduras, the alienation of Karzai and continuing humiliation at the hands of China and Russia through diplomatic insults, showed weakness and stupidity. The Iranian takeover of the region is premised on that incompetence. Lebanon was a test. The next step was Tunisia. Then Egypt.
    Iran has three major obstacles to regional dominance. Egypt, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Of these three, Egypt with its radicalized population, great poverty and limited influence in Washington D.C. was the most vulnerable. Any overthrow of Mubarak will move the Muslim Brotherhood closer to taking power. But for Iran the priority is to take Egypt out of the game. Whatever happens in Egypt, it will weaken the country. And what weakens Egypt, only strengthens Iran.
    Turkey and Syria are part of Iran’s regional coalition. Jordan appears to be leaning that way. Lebanon has been taken over. Iraq is set to fall when America leaves. If Egypt falls, that just leaves Saudi Arabia and Israel in the way. The Saudis will face domestic unrest, possibly from that alliance with Al-Qaeda that Bin Laden originally rejected. And there’s a nuke with Israel’s name on it somewhere in Iran. All this has happened because the Obama Administration has been too weak, confused and incompetent to stand for anything.
    Iran is showing us its cards now, knowing that there’s very little we will do about it. Its plans are moving forward. Ours are not only going nowhere, but actually helping the enemy.
    Why did the Second Iranian revolution fail, while the revolts in Tunis and even Egypt seem to be gaining some traction? One element is foreign backing. No one outside the country provided support to the Iranian protesters. But the revolts in Tunisia and Egypt have not only Iranian backing, but also Western support. We provided training and political support to the “liberal” Egyptian pawns of the Islamists like El Baradei. And even now we’re on the verge of endorsing a provisional government under a man who is allied to the Muslim Brotherhood.
    Iran’s backers in Russia and China did not in any way indicate a loss of support during the protests in its cities. But Obama has made it muddily clear that he doesn’t really support Mubarak, certainly not Ben Ali. Rather than endorsing one side or the other, he tried to play both sides. A non-committal statement that communicates that we will support whoever wins. Which means that unlike Russia and China, we don’t support the current regime. That withdrawal of support from our allies, translates into a win for the opposition. It’s a tacit boost to efforts to overthrow the government.
    The key determinant of whether a revolution will succeed in ousting a government is its staying power. The key players who make or break a revolution rarely go out into the street waving banners, at least not until they have an armed escort and the foreign photographers who conveniently snap photos of their best side. Those key players are the power brokers, tribal leaders, heads of the army and the intelligence services and leaders of various influential associations who don’t choose sides until they have a pretty good idea which side will prevail.
    The game of revolution is really about two sides trying to tote up how much support they each have. One side is the government, the other side is usually a coalition of factions who are pooling their resources in order to overthrow it. That leads to odd alliances and strange marriages between leftists and Islamists. Once the government is out, then the process will begin again with the coalition members playing the same game against each other.
    The game takes place on several levels. Violent street protests are a show of force. Their purpose is to demonstrate that the government is weak and cannot control or subdue their protests. The riot police display dominance by trying to drive them away. These displays are common enough in the primate kingdom, but here they are dressed up in self-righteous rhetoric and riot gear. Whoever wins scores dominance points. If the riot police succeed, then they show that the government retains control over the cities. If they fail, then the protesters show that the government has lost control.
    It doesn’t matter how ruthless the government crackdown is. Brutality may create more enemies in the long run, but if it succeeds in controlling the cities, then the revolution cannot move forward. The politicians associated with the protests (and they’re always there) become impotent and irrelevant. Men and women who gambled on a revolt and lost. They may become martyrs or they may find a way back into the government, depending on their own principles and whether the government is willing to have them. But brutality is also a sign of weakness. A last resort to maintain control. But it is also a sign of strength. A government that unleashes total violence on its own people demonstrates that it has staying power.
    If the riots continue, the next step in this chess game is to call for the restoration of order. The politicians attached to the protest movements will claim to be the only ones who can calm the public’s anger and restore order. The government will step up enforcement to show that it is perfectly capable of restoring order. Foreign diplomats will counsel the government to negotiate with the politicians representing the protesters. This is usually the last step in the dismantling of the government.
    A government with staying power will refuse to negotiate and play the waiting game. A revolution runs off the energy of ongoing protests and street violence. But that energy is not a perpetual motion machine. Even with new government outrages, keeping the protests going takes dedication and resources. Eventually the casual looters and bored teenagers who fuel such protests go home. The working class men go back to work in order to feed their families. This leaves the protest core of middle-class and wealthy students exposed. They are the educated core of the protest movements, the ones who actually seem to know what they want. But they are also much easier to scatter and break than their poorer compatriots. Occasional protests will still go on, inspired by the events of that month, they may in time succeed in toppling the government, but only if it weakens significantly.
    That means Mubarak might still survive, but our influence won’t. The endorsement of Suleiman means that we won’t see a dynasty of Mubaraks, which is probably a good thing, but also means that Egypt’s secret police will call the shots in the future. The Cedar revolution has been swallowed up by Hezbollah. Lebanon will almost inevitably see another civil war, along with ethnic cleansing and possibly genocide. Jordan is falling under the Iranian umbrella. The days of the Hashemite kingdom are numbered. Imagine a Gaza four times the size of Israel. That’s what we’re on track for now.
    Once Israel is bracketed in by enemies, an Islamist Turkey, a Muslim Brotherhood run Egypt and a Palestinian Jordan, and Iranian dominated Syria and Lebanon– the game will move into its final stages. Iran needs to destroy Israel in order to prove its right to rule the region, but Israel is also one of the few points of agreement between Sunnis and Shiites. Iran’s real foe is Saudi Arabia, but it can’t act directly against it without bringing America into the game. If Iran can take Mecca, its leaders become the supreme authorities of Islam. Shiite control over Mecca might trigger a global Muslim civil war. Or a global accommodation.
    If Iran can checkmate America in an armed conflict, it may have a chance. So it will try to initiate a limited conflict on its terms, once it has a nuclear deterrent to prevent the United States from escalating the conflict. A likely scenario is a regional version of the Korean War in a divided Iraq or Afghanistan, in which Iran plays the China role, overwhelming an undermanned US presence with a show of force and then negotiating an armistice. The goal will be for Iran to inflict enough damage on the United States to gain credibility as the ultimate Muslim superpower. And that would lead to some of the bloodiest battles since the Tet Offensive, with a courageous showing by American forces acting under severely restricted rules of engagement fighting a war that their government has already decided it can’t win. Even if Obama is not in office by then, whoever is would be faced with a choice or prolonging a conflict against the Taliban/Mahdi Army to reclaim territory that the United States has already withdrawn from. It’s not an enviable decision.
    That is the path that Iran’s leadership is following. We are being maneuvered into a tighter and tighter corner, with fewer and fewer allies left. The Middle East is being lost. And it’s happening on Obama’s watch.

  • nnmnns

    These conservative bloggers with their claims we should be doing something to keep Mubarak in office against public pressures like these show conservatives are too rabid to take seriously. Do they want us to land marines to take control of Egypt?

  • romanscapegoat

    rick is an example of a the typical backwards hillbilly christian teabagger who was fooled into voting against his own benefit…the republican fundamentals in office is to always protect the Jewish owned banks and corporations from regulation to ensure maximum profit for the Jews in the highest positions of the world…the Jews are in control of the world…a gift from Lucifer for killing their messiah…the Egyptians enslaved the Hebrews…the Egyptians worshipped the space aliens…the space aliens are really Lucifer and his fallen angels….Lucifer walks with the jews…the space aliens(LUCIFER AND FALLEN ANGELS) abduct people and torture them…they take unborn babies from abducted women…the space aliens have given the Jews the highest positions of power of the world…the Jews will call the leader of the space aliens their messiah…the Jews will call Lucifer their messiah…SOON the space aliens will land and bring peace to the world, and force everyone to bow down before their leader, Lucifer, and call him god…

  • nnmnns

    Brad you and Aziz share the problem of a preponderance of posters of questionable intentions and/or sanity, some very long winded. It must be frustrating.

  • romanscapegoat

    nnmmns…since god made man in his own image…why are the space aliens more advanced than man…why are there so many religions and cults who believe the space aliens created man, which would make their leader god…the space aliens are real…the space aliens are really Lucifer and his fallen angels…you will be forced to bow down before their leader and the worst insult to god, is the jews who are the people of god, will claim Lucifer their messiah…the pyramids of Egypt are a shrine for Lucifer…money has the pyramids and the all seeing eye…not a coincidence…money is the root of all evil

  • Gil

    Goat – you are truly unique – a phenominal, anatomic, gastronimical, deviant creature from the “lagoonies.” Each time you open your pathetic pie-hole, the most fowl, undigested detritus issues forth. There is one thing to be ignorant of the facts – but you take the dregs of sheer lunacy to the highest. Why don’t you give your trap – spelled crap, a rest. Allow intelligent representatives of the higher life forms, of which presumably have left you in your attivistic stagnant morass, a chance to communicate in an intelligent, coherent, manner, and share their erudition. In other words, SIT THE HELL DOWN,KEEP YOUR PSYCHOTIC WHISPERINGS, WHIMPERINGS, AND LOOSENESS OF ASSOCIATIONS TO YOURSELF, YOUR BLOCKING THE SCREEN OF HUMAN DISCOURSE.

  • Gil

    typo correction – atavistic

  • romanscapegoat

    gil…one more typo and you will be asked to stop posting and return to pre-k…

  • Gil

    Goat – do I spot a scintilla of intelligence in your whimsy. And I gave you up for Lent. You may be educable – if you are able to doff your prejudicial blinders, and lose your monomanical, rabid and venomous parochial paranoia.

  • romanscapegoat

    gil…what education doesn’t teach you is…there is a small group of people who control this world and uses the media and television to spread propaganda to keep the people from uprising and taking power away from those who have the power….Egypt is another example of why SOON the Internet will not be free…PEOPLE MUST NEVER HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO FORM A REBILLION…PEOPLE MUST BE PROGRAMMED…PEOPLE MUST BE PROGRAMED…PEOPLE MUST BE PROGRAMED…PEOPLE MUST BE PROGRAMED!!!!!!!!!!this is why the Jews own Hollywood and all media outlets…PEOPLE ARE BEING PROGRAMMED…gil you are an educated fool

  • romanscapegoat

    the twin towers was orchestrated by the jews…osama bin laden was a patsy…the twin towers fell as if was a controlled demolition..and building 7 fell as if were a controlled demolition…building 7 fell for no reason except it was on fire…a scientist did test on dust from the twin towers and found explosive materials…all the building steel from the twin towers and building 7, was immediately removed and sent oversees…george bush, dick chaney and others were involved…the space aliens are really Lucifer and the fallen angels…lucifer walks with the jews in the highest position of power of the world…THERE IS NO FREEDOM!!!!THE JEWS ARE CONTROLING THE WORLD…A GIFT FROM LUCIFER FOR KILLING THIER MESSIAH…Jesus and Lucifer are brothers…the space aliens will land soon and make people bow down and call their leader(lucifer)god…those who do not accept lucifer as god WILL BE KILLED…my words are god

  • Gil

    Goat – In today’s age people such as yourself spouting such lunacy are fairly safe. Especially if you continue to hide with your nom de plume on the internet. Back in the 1930′s and ’40s people bringing in the likes of you to a New York psychiatric State Hospital would receive a paid bounty of $25.00. You must live in a very isolated, circumscribed world. Did you ever wonder why both family and strangers shun you? Just as nature abhors a vacuum, normal people abhor or distance themselves from someone such as you with your psychotic rants. We know that your condition is not a contagion, but your illness makes people uncomfortable. They either have inate sense or education that warns them not to become part of your paranoid, delusional system. Unfortunately there are people who have cardio-vascular and neoplastic disease signs and symptoms,and do not seek professional help, and die needlessly. People such as yourself will wander about in your schizophrenic state, into oblivion, wasting a human life.

  • romanscapegoat

    gil…ignorance is contagious…something your a victim of…mel gibson and many others have talked about the small group of jews that control the world…the Jews latest agenda is to make sure obama never gets reelected…Obama is the first president who took the control of the white house away from the jewish owned banks and corporations…if Obama would was against the uprising in Egypt, the jewish owned media(not just fox news) would be reporting the uprising in Egypt is a good thing for democracy…you should read some of the things i have written on twitter under the name, withyobadself…I’m sure those who know the space aliens, are watching the things i say….the space aliens fear me..i am lucifers brother….and lucifer wants to be forgiving and be able to return to heaven…DO YOU KNOW A JEWISH PRODUCER IN HOLLYWOOD THAT WANTS TO MAKE A MOVIE??? I HAVE ALOT OF GOOD IDEAS…

  • Gil

    As to movies – you could write and star in a sequel to “Psycho,” but given youe propensity towards the gay life you could star in “Diary of a Mad Housewife.” As for your ornithological inyterest, you would be perfect starring as a Loon or Coo Coo bird – especially with your bird brain endeavors which are becoming a bit seedy.

  • romanscapegoat

    gil…you are a jew that will never be allowed to be recognized by the top notch jews…your social status only permits you to perform janitorial services for the higher accomplished jews…your in the same category as jewish women, who have to be locked out of sight while they bleed…

Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!
Thank you for visiting Windows and Doors. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Truths You Can Use Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 1:28:03pm Aug. 02, 2012 | read full post »

Apple's "Jew or Not Jew" App -- Should It Be Legal?
An Apple application that let users guess which French politicians or celebrities are Jewish was pulled from France's App Store. but its American equivalent is still available. French activist groups said the "Jew or Not Jew?" app violated bans on compiling information on people's religion and rev

posted 1:18:48am Sep. 18, 2011 | read full post »

Is God A Christian?
R. Kirby Godsey’s new book, Is God A Christian?, challenges what the author describes as the commonly held belief among many religious people that the God in whom they believe is “one of them”.  People, Mr. Kirby observes, too often confuse God’s religious identity with their own, leading t

posted 11:59:56am Sep. 12, 2011 | read full post »

Remembering 9/11 - Part One
The tenth anniversary of 9/11 brings up many emotions and presents some very real challenges, among them how to remember the past without being imprisoned by it.  This video, filmed at St. Paul's, the church closest to the World Trade Center site, is a wonderful example of rising to that challen

posted 2:40:58pm Sep. 08, 2011 | read full post »

Gilad Shalit, Still A Prisoner After 1,900 Days
Below is a copy of the Statement I got from the White House, and while I appreciate the words, I can't help but also ask, "Is this the best we can do?"  United States Mission to the United Nations Office of Press and Public Diplomacy 799 United Nations Plaza New York, NY 10017 (212) 41

posted 9:04:17am Sep. 08, 2011 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.