the Lakoffian® 'holocaust' minefield

 .. 'perfect,' (lying!) propaganda ...

   .. the I/J/Z-plex sickly exploits it ...

     .. but others may not even discuss it


Preamble: I was talking to a friend, and the holocaust 'topic' surfaced. I said: "Madness. Even to mention it is to fall into an I/J/Z-plex framing trap, where no argument is possible (and the goodies can't win)." He expostulated: "Wha-a-at!!?" I explained, that no rational discussion was possible; that the maddies had so muddied the water, that it's best just to say "Yes. Nazis definitely bad." - and then move on. Of course some discussion ensued; associated topics like 'freedom of speech' and 'honesty in politics' being prominent.


Context: There are many 'strings;' IMHO the highest priority of all is the putative excess-CO2 caused climate change, where I'm forced to write both putative and change in italics - exactly because climate change sceptics currently 'hold sway,' preventing the world from taking any effective action towards saving itself - if damaging climate change really is on the way. Of course, IF a climate change catastrophe does occur, THEN it's all over, Rover. I have to include this para, but it's not what I'm on about - here; nor am I on about the dangers of resource depletion - which will happen all the faster sooner, as ever more resources are gobbled up (some unavoidably, lots profligately) - by ever more people.

Eclipsing the above terminally serious topics are the rampant rogue regimes of the US and Israel. These two, aka the illegitimate tail wagging the rabid dog, plus the UK poodle and Aus dag make up the Anglo/Judaic axis of evil, and that axis is embedded in the so-called 'West.' (Why France and Germany are in this worries me; apparently at least Merkel is starting to wake up.) Now the greatest sin of the US is not its profligate (that word again) consumption, but how it goes about acquiring the resources it Oh, so obscenely devours. (Gluttony is a sin; 5% world's pop. consuming 25% world's resources.) The predominate method of US resource acquisition is to rip them off via inadequate compensation to the sovereign resource owners (see 'resource rent' or 'rent seeking,' say); any resistors to their crooked modus operandi being chastened by, not to put too fine a point on it, armed robbery with actual, murdering violence. (See Perkins' "Economic Hit Man." Latest example: Iraq.) Ditto for Israel; 61+ years long now, mass-murdering for mainly Palestinian land and water. Nothing in these two paras will be new to regular readers 'in here,' and that's the end of my context-setting.

Q: How do these villains get away with such horrendously vile crimes?

A: 1) The criminals lie about it; 2) the sheople do not seem to notice, or if they do, they just say effectively "So what?" But who really knows what the sheople think - if they think at all? This is not arrogance talking, but sadness: why are so many people so apparently apathetic about the disgusting, murdering criminality - of our so-called 'leaders?'


My 'morning ritual' (not followed 'religiously' - I'm no 'believer' (Haw!)) - is to rouse to AusBC's AM - usually, in more ways than one - getting roused, I mean. This morning differed little from many others:

1. Obama tells Ahmadinejad to visit Nazi death camp

2. Obama slams Holocaust deniers in camp visit

3. Iran has enough uranium for nuclear bomb: UN

Apart from noting (with distaste) the 'editorial style' ("Xxx slams Yyy"), the last shall be first:

  «The UN's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, says Iran has more than 1,300 kilograms of low-enriched uranium, which is well over the amount needed to make a single nuclear bomb.» 
[AusBC/justin, ibid.]

There are several ways to tell lies[1], this uranium item includes a few - IMHO. One assumes that the IAEA did report the low-enriched 1300Kgs, but what the sheople are presumed *not* to know, is that 'low-enriched' is perfectly useless in building A-bombs (technical accuracy: one needs very highly enriched - something entirely different from 'low.' Iran, as far as anyone knows, only has low.) IF, as is insinuated, the IAEA went on to say 'amount needed' THEN the IAEA lied by inaccuracy, or IF the IAEA did *not* make that connection (my 'tip'), THEN the BBC lied. Whatever the case, the AusBC lied to us - by retailing the (totally misleading!) story.

The AusBC does this sort of thing - i.e. lying to us - all the time.


The Holocaust: Whoops! Warning! Warning! - Lakoffian® trap![2]

1. By now, we all know what the Holocaust was. ("Yes. Nazis definitely bad." Move on.)

2. And we should know, that despite all the poison being spat at us via and on their own behalf by the MSM (with AusBC: bad Aunty!), Ahmadinejad is *not* an Holocaust denier[3] per se, but does deny that the Holocaust justifies slaughtering Palestinians, which Israel has now criminally been doing for 61+ years.

3. Also, we heard from Obama that he wanted to 'make a new start' towards Muslims AND Iran.

4. Sooo, what's up? It simply cannot be (inconsistency), that Obama wants to 'make friends' with Iran - by making such 'incendiary' accusations. Which, not at all coincidentally, rev the sheople up - looks to me like actual "hate speech" from Obama directed at Iran via Ahmadinejad, to cause what? An acceptance by the sheople of an attack on Iran?

Whatever the case, it's pure hypocrisy for Obama to say one thing one day, then the opposite the next.

Fazit: However these criminals lie, it's IF lie THEN no credibility.


PS Here's a good item on what Israel is up to:

June 4, 2009
The Future of Israel and the Decline of the American Empire
The Wages of Hubris and Vengeance
  «Although its leaders avoid saying so in public, Israel does not want peace, or a permanent comprehensive settlement, except on its own terms. They do not dare spell these out publicly, as they presume the enemy’s unconditional surrender, even enduring submission. Instead the Palestinians continue to be blamed for a chronic state of war that entails Israel’s continuing self-endangerment and militarization. This policy’s underlying strategic premise is the need to prevent any significant change in the West Asian balance of power.» 

Comment: This raises the spectre of the 'middle east peace process.' It's a lie; nobody can seriously pursue peace for sooo long, with sooo little (i.e. zero) success. Another lie pushed at us daily by, amongst others, the (rotten!) AusBC.



[1] lie2 —n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives. —v. (lies, lied, lying) 1 tell a lie or lies. 2 (of a thing) be deceptive.  give the lie to show the falsity of (a supposition etc.). [Old English] [POD]

[2] Framing (social sciences)
  «A frame in social theory consists of a schema of interpretation—that is, a collection of stereotypes—that individuals rely on to understand and respond to events. In psychology, framing is influenced by the background of a context choice and the way in which the question is worded.» 

[3] denier2
noun a person who denies something: a denier of God. [Oxford Pop-up]


  1. Q: Have you stopped beating your wife? ...

    As we know, one can't 'prove' a negative.

    "He did!" - "Didn't!" gets us worse than nowhere.

    I searched high and low; looking for 'official' sort of stuff:

    1) Some Notes 2006/10/01
    Full text of President's speech and the question and answer session before the US foreign relation council
      «Q: Mr. President ... In Dec 2005 you said they invented the myth in favor of Jews. ...

    A: ... But here we face the main question which is raised by no one: this incident happened in Europe but the Palestinians are paying the price.»
    [Ahmadinejad's own blog]

    Ahmadinejad's words: this incident happened...

    2) Tuesday 25 September 2007 - 05:30
    President at the sideline of Colombia University speech:
    Asking questions about historical events is the university's students and thinkers' right
      «Our friend (Colombia University rector) referred to 1930 and mentioned the offspring of this event in this year. However, I think Holocaust has happened during the Second World War and after 1930 and it happened in 1940. Therefore, we must research about these events carefully."» 

    Ahmadinejad's words: I think Holocaust has happened during the Second World War...


    Does *not* look like anything except acceptance of historical fact to me - but always with the same one or two questions; 1) *why* can't people be free to discuss - or even dispute (freedom of speech); 2) *why* should Palestinians be made to so horribly suffer - and so many die (a single one would already be too many!) for their land (respect for property - and life).

    I think it would be fair of *any/all* alleging 'malfeasance' to provide proof; seems to me that they make pretty filthy, *serious* charges.

    Certainly, without cast-iron proof, the AusBC should better mind its/their manners.

  2. "... the sheople do not seem to notice, or if they do, they just say effectively 'So what?' ..."

    Katz and Allport's pluralistic ignorance helps explain what's happening. Those whom appropriate the term *Holocaust* twist it into the narrowed (biased) frame with the aim of fostering pluralistic ignorance.

  3. so-called 'beautiful' monsters

    I have personally witnessed (i.e. I saw it on TV) - at least three sorts of 'ravers,' in three different countries and two languages; she (they) looked me (actually, of course, the TV cameras) - right in the eye, and lied at me. (Well, not 'just' at me of course, possibly millions!)


    The 'story' each were 'relating' was the same, namely Ahmadinejad's alleged(!!?) (Except that a) they never said 'alleged,' nor b) did they ever provide any proof whatsoever (in the form of a checkable quote, say)) - Holocaust 'denying.' Exactly the same(translated) word, 'denying.'

    One such grisly monster was 'relating' our local TV news, just the other night ...

    (You wonder how they keep their faces straight.)


    Then, I/we have seen 'pluralistic ignorance' in operation; take Howard for example, he often said things like "Everyone knows" - usually preceeding true whoppers. (And/or it could be the 'false consensus' effect.) One could imagine the mums'n dads right across our wide-brown, all nodding sagely (just like they did for Pauline, too.) I mean, "Yes," the Holocaust was pretty bad, and also "Yes," the Jewish people must have suffered in WW2 - as did lots of others.

    But *NO!* - nothing can justify Israel slaughtering Palestinians and stealing Palestinian land.

  4. dark & disgusting lies vs. the shining truth...

    At the moment I'm sleeping under the Southern Cross. No, that doesn't mean I'm typing in my sleep; but when I go to bed tonight, AND the sky is clear (very often the case), THEN I'll be able to look out my window (actually, a double-glazed double door), and see some stars. Since the view is to the south, the majestic constellation of the Southern Cross and Pointers will rotate in my view.

    In the vast blackness of the sky, the stars stand out like brilliant specks of luminous gold-dust, only a (relative) handful - amongst wide, dark spaces.

    That's how I visualise truth, a few shining points set against a vast backdrop of inky darkness.


    Given that for any single truth, there are effectively infinite lies, I find it strange that the (corrupt & venal) MSM - spread across the world, containing a few publicly financed broadcasters - all seem to 'converge' on similar lies, like the ones they 'attach' to Ahmadinejad, say. You know the ones; map wiping, denying etc.. But I don't invoke any c-theory to explain this curiosity, I posit 'birds of a feather.' Anyone can understand how it might happen; one of them thinks up a convenient lie (or has it whispered in his/her shell-like, by some propagandist/spy, say) - and then the rest, being of somewhat lazy tendency, all copy.

    I, on the other hand, read widely; trying to pick the stars of truth from the dross.

    Occasionally, I 'strike it lucky;' here is one such case:

    June 5 -7, 2009
    The Politics of Paranoia
    The Great, International, Truly Demonic Iran Threat
      «"Fifty-one percent of Israelis support an immediate Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites" - BBC, May 24
    After taking office, on Holocaust Memorial Day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: "We will not allow Holocaust-deniers [Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] to carry out another holocaust." - Haaretz (Israel), May 14, 2009
    Like clinical paranoia, "the threat from Iran" is impervious to correction by rational argument.»

    As usual, one should read it all. I did.

  5. (Almost) no further comment needed (*except* that nobody listened - or if they did, they didn't hear - or if they did, they didn't effectively react:)

    "On 31 January 1970, Russell issued a statement which condemned Israeli aggression in the Middle East and called for Israeli withdrawal from territory occupied in 1967. The statement said that:
      «The tragedy of the people of Palestine is that their country was "given" by a foreign power to another people for the creation of a new state. The result was that many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made permanently homeless. With every new conflict their numbers increased. How much longer is the world willing to endure this spectacle of wanton cruelty? It is abundantly clear that the refugees have every right to the homeland from which they were driven, and the denial of this right is at the heart of the continuing conflict. No people anywhere in the world would accept being expelled en masse from their own country; how can anyone require the people of Palestine to accept a punishment which nobody else would tolerate? A permanent just settlement of the refugees in their homeland is an essential ingredient of any genuine settlement in the Middle East. We are frequently told that we must sympathise with Israel because of the suffering of the Jews in Europe at the hands of the Nazis. [...] What Israel is doing today cannot be condoned, and to invoke the horrors of the past to justify those of the present is gross hypocrisy.» 
    —Bertrand Russell, 31 January 1970
    This was Russell's final ever political statement or act. It was read out at the International Conference of Parliamentarians in Cairo on 3 February 1970, the day after his death."

    And today? Today, the (risibly named, offensive!) IDF continue their 'raids' against the hapless Palestinians, now 61+ years 'down the track,' and *still* murdering to steal Palestinian homelands.
    Where is *JUSTICE?*

  6. A good laugh is called for - there was a report today about an Israeli minister suggesting that Israel impose sanctions against the US. Here's Justin Raimondo's take. 

    Side-splitting stuff.

  7. A quote:
      «Now that Israel’s true face is showing, how long before all the public relations efforts in the world fail to mask the ugly reality?» 
    [BobW/antiwar/Justin Raimondo]
    Q: After 61+ years, such slow learners?
    G'day Bob; another *great* citation.
    More serious Q: What happened in 1967? I mean, I know there was a war (largely if not totally provoked BY ISRAEL, we've learned since then) - but I've also heard, that that was when Israel became the US's 'baby,' even after the USS Liberty (xx dead US service-people, including CIA-type spies, killed (some say 'murdered') by Israeli forces.) Then, there's the Russell quote above (as many others), calling "for Israeli withdrawal from territory occupied in 1967."

    Q: Why '67? Why not '47?

    I also know, that it was the '67 war before/during/after which the big 'push' by the AusBC took place (into my innocent consciousness, at least) - to 'paint' Israel as the poor little David vs. the 'vicious monster' Arab Goliath *PROPAGANDA LIE*. (Boo! Hiss! Bad Aunty!)

    In actual fact, all along since '47 through to Lebanon in '06, Gaza in '08/9, the 'vicious monster' is now and always was the (illegal??!) state of Israel.

    Q: Sooo, what's with '67?


    PS Anyone can boycott Israel: find any Israeli product in a shop, take it to the management and hand it to him/her, saying:

    "I'm not buying anything from there!!!"

  8. Thanks for the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs item. This is a pertinent bit:

    US Aid: The Lifeblood of Occupation
    By Matt Bowles
      «The "special relationship" between the U.S. and Israel must be understood within the overall American imperialist project and the quest for global hegemony, beginning in the late 1960s and early 1970s. For example, 99% of all U.S. aid to Israel came after 1967, despite the fact that Israel was relatively more vulnerable in earlier years (from 1948-1967).» 

    I suppose one could say, that the '67 war showed that Israel was sufficiently brutal to earn a place in infamy as the illegitimate tail and set about wagging the rabid dog.
    Q: Why can't the US just buy oil; is it really all that necessary, for both regimes, to mass-murder for spoil? Perhaps they thought we'd never notice? (Of course, the AusBC tried to make sure we wouldn't know, or notice.)

  9. Note: I did a search to get the date of Durban I, since the wrmea article referred to it:

    Results 1 - 50 of about 14,200 for Durban September UN Global Conference Against Racism. (0.49 secs)

    Surprise! - Or perhaps not: the 'top hit' was from a very definite pro-I/J/Z-plex site. Funny - peculiar; I'm under the impression that assisting criminals is also a crime - in most countries honouring the rule of law, that is.

  10. Q: Sooo, what's with '67?

    In '67 LBJ's popularity poll results were going rapidly downhill and perhaps he hoped to win pro-Zionist voter support. He was surrounded by hawks and, taking their advice, he turned more hawkish himself.

  11. Then in '68, that crook Nixon and his cronies took power and, particularly after '72, they accelerated the aid to its militarised client states in the middle east, chiefly Israel but also Iran under the Shah.

  12. interesting theory


    I was around in '67; I date my 'acquisition' of the completely false & utterly, cynically misleading (massive understatement; alternative text: filthy lying propagandistic myth) "poor little David vs. the ugly Arab (these days Muslim) Goliath" meme - thanks, but "No, thanks!" to the AusBC (*Bad* Aunty!)

    We also had "All the way with LBJ!"

    To top off a 'trifecta,' from my recent reading this:

    Jun 10, 2009
    It all comes down to Keynes
    By Julian Delasantellis
      «That's a lot easier than it sounds; president Lyndon Johnson essentially sacrificed his dream of a second term elected from out of the shadow of the assassinated president Kennedy with the 10% Vietnam War surtax meant to contain his "guns and butter" budget deficit and subsequent inflation.» 

    As orana gelar (g'day) correctly points out, après Johnson, came le déluge Nixon. But that was *after* '67, so doesn't explicate "Why '67?"

    The the USS Liberty 'provocation' - or so I've read - was *extreme*. As in not *just* IL disobeying (usual grounds for infinite & eternal US revenge) - but deliberately trying to slaughter a whole ship-load of US service persons with SPIES among 'em.

    Also (looping); why back to '67 borders, why not '47?

    One more iteration; it's two questions, a) why US support (I can understand it: as in, the US empire) - but why '67 (I can understand that too: as in, the timing fitted) - *BUT* b) which borders would be 'just?' I say '47 if any; otherwise "All ILs out!"

    It's been said before, again from the Russell quote: "A permanent just settlement of the refugees in their homeland is an essential ingredient of any genuine settlement in the Middle East."

  13. Q. Why back to [pre-]'67 borders?

    That aim is rooted in the Arab Peace Initiative proposed by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. It was to be but a starting point from which a just peace might grow. Ariel Sharon attempted to have it aborted. AIPAC continues to oppose it.

    Q. Why not back to lines as shown on maps in '47, i.e. the UN Partition Plan for Palestine (Res 181-II)?

    All I can think of is toothpaste and the tube.

    My Q. Why not all be adult, sit down, talk, negotiate, and agree entirely new lines on the map that are based on what is mutually acceptable and will foster preserved peace after people decide for themselves on which side of the new lines they want to live their lives?

  14. toothpaste and the tube

     .. is an *invalid* argument ...

       .. the ILs deliberately made it invalid ...

         .. all these *illegal* settlements are their toothpaste


    G'day again orana gelar.

    Yes, by "Why [pre-]'67 borders, why not '47?" I am referring to the UN Partition, to be 'pedantically' accurate. BUT (it's quite a big but): some people (like me, say) think that forcing that Partition Plan on Palestine was wrong in the first place; yet more from the Russell quote:

      «The tragedy of the people of Palestine is that their country was "given" by a foreign power to another people for the creation of a new state. The result was that many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made permanently homeless.»

    Not just «made permanently homeless;» they were ejected - often at the point of a gun or worse, slaughtered. Imagine how you'd feel?

    Then, you mention which side of the new lines, which implies to me a two-state so-called 'solution.' However, it occurred to me just the other day (yeah! Thinking all the time!) - that one of any 'two-states' would be IL itself - and therefore recognition; a concession that I personally would not go near with a 3048mm bargepole.

    One hears over and over the assertion: "IL has a right to exist!" But (an even bigger BUT): they often harp on their own vulnerabilities, I would agree to this: "Individual ILs have a right to exist!" - and I would then go on to say, "Exactly as Individual Palestinians have a right to exist!"

    Since we are doing hypotheticals, and that be adult, sit down, talk, negotiate, and agree is just *never* gunna happen (short of IL getting effectively, comprehensibly disarmed (now there's an idea!)) - why not reach for the sky and say one properly democratic state for all, with full restitution of all originally owned property wherever possible, or full and fair compensation if *somehow* (only to be extremely exceptional) not possible?

    It may be old but it's eternally true:

    There can never be peace without justice.

  15. One properly democratic state for all is what is in mind when I hope for people to be able to choose which side of any line that is imagined onto the land, whether it be a line that marks out one State of peoples all equals, or two States of people, all equals, living peaceably as neighbours side-by-side.

  16. boots or facts ...

     .. on the ground ...

       .. both filthy propaganda ...

         .. what we need to see is cash on the barrel


    The IL ever-outwards creeping (non!)border, requiring a brutal and continuous military presence is neither just nor sustainable.

    Pushing Palestinians around at the point of a gun was/is something that requires *BIG* explanations from all those who a) should have known better and b) have made themselves accomplices by not effectively objecting, i.e. not even attempting to stop the crimes, let alone bringing any perpetrators to justice.

    Things have got to get better than they are; a *lot* better - soonest.


    Oh! What about all that cash? Yeah; to fully recompense the hapless victims, i.e. 'righting' 61+ years of murdering, criminal thieving assault will need *heaps* of cash.

  17. I agree entirely, there is no peace without justice. Reconciliation is aided by recognition, recompense, restitution.

  18. How about all US aid to Israel henceforth going into a fund from which the recompense will be made? A bold change for the US, yes.

  19. BTW, I just noticed:

    Offenses against man require, in addition to confession and sacrifice, restitution in full of whatever has been wrongfully obtained or withheld from one's fellow man, with one-fifth of its value added thereto (Lev. 5:20-26).

    So, that's *heaps* of cash plus one fifth again of each of those *heaps*.

  20. what we see - wicked crimes, murdering injustice

     .. is what the US & Israel 'give' us ...

       .. "Truth & Justice!" - just ain't the USraeli way ...

         .. what we see is - the pinnacle of Anglo/Judaic 'civilisation'


    G'day orana gelar,

    and thanks for the Leviticus[1] side-trip.

    Then, a 'pome:'

    «Oh, the ground at my feet, maybe it's just the old street
    But everything that I know lies asunder
    (it's your life, it's your life)
    And when I see what they've done
    To this place that was home
    Shame is all that I feel
    Oh, and I wonder (oh, I wonder)
    Yes, I wonder (wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder)
    Is this the way life's meant to be?»


    Let's face it; we've been lied too. Lies are deployed to deceive; so Q: What've they got to hide? A: Plenty.

    One of the erring-ideologue lying r-wing trolls argued:

      "The end justifies the means." 

    Well of course, what utter bullshit. 'The end' was the capture and killing of Saddam; and "Yes," he was a tyrant. But 'the means' were "Shock and Awe;" attacking almost entirely innocent citizens with the most modern - and cruel - weapons on the planet. And the price? I don't think the price (perhaps 1.3mio dead; 2mio fled and 2mio internally displaced) - could possibly ever be worth it. And all the time, it was the oil they were after; murder for spoil.

    In our current discussion, it was/is the great number of Palestinians either outright slaughtered or driven out of their homes and off their land - just to provide "Lebensraum" for an ignorant bunch of foreign invaders, aka the I/J/Z-plex and their filthy 'facts on the ground' illegal settlements; murder for land and water.


    This, apparently, this bestial criminality (all of the ugly mass-murder to enable theft, pillage, looting, plunder and rapine) - is the 'best' they can do?

    As I wrote in my headline:

      the pinnacle of Anglo/Judaic 'civilisation.'



    [1] Leviticus (almost random selection):
      «Laws concerning molten gods, peace-offerings, scraps of the harvest, fraud, the deaf, blind, elderly, and poor, poisoning the well[2], hate, sex with slaves, self harm, shaving, prostitution, sabbaths, sorcery, familiars, strangers, and just weights and measure (Leviticus 19)» 

    [2] poisoning the well:
      «Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say.
    See also
    Black propaganda

    [3] Black propaganda:
      «Black propaganda is false information and material that purports to be from a source on one side of a conflict, but is actually from the opposing side. It is typically used to vilify, embarrass or misrepresent the enemy.» 

    Comment: The wicked US & Israeli 'principals' invent then deploy the lies, but they are relayed to us, often even amplified by, the (corrupt & venal) MSM, also including publicly financed broadcasters like the AusBC.

    Boo! Hiss!

  21. Israeli attack on USS Liberty ...

     .. unbeknownst to me ...

       .. was sitting on ICH


    Denied Infamy
    Israeli attack on USS Liberty
    By Alan Sabrosky
    June 08, 2009
      «So why did the Israelis do it? One possibility is that for them, it was simply business as usual. Israel has a long history of attacking anything in its path – a civilian airliner, UN posts and officials, refugee camps, hospitals, the lot -- and then denying culpability, so the question is not "why," but "why not?" Another was to dispose of inconvenient witnesses to the murder of Egyptian prisoners and civilians at El Arish.
    A third was to cloak their strategy of involving Jordan so as to take East Jerusalem and the West Bank. And a fourth was to show other Arab countries that they had such influence in the US that they could do it and get away with it, and perhaps involve the US militarily on their side.»

    As usual, one should read the lot.

    I especially liked this gruesome bit: «... to dispose of inconvenient witnesses to the murder of Egyptian prisoners and civilians at El Arish.»

    A shocker, eh? But all S.O.P. for the utterly immoral I/J/X-plex.


    PS Note that if the MSM properly informed the sheople, one might think that there'd be "hell to pay" for the sheople's outrage.

    But obviously, the story has been suppressed. Thanks, but "No, thanks!" to the corrupt and venal MSM, including the AusBC.

    Boo! Hiss!

  22. With no intention to diminish the most gruesome bit, I think the key is: «... cloak their strategy of involving Jordan so as to take East Jerusalem and the West Bank.»

  23. gruesome stays gruesome ...

     .. it can be neither diminished ...

       .. nor justified, let alone excused ...

         .. forgiven or expunged - gruesome is irrevocably foul


    G'day orana gelar,

    and "what you said;" «involving Jordan» illustrates another filthily gruesome aspect, namely that the Arabs and/or Muslims 'allow' themselves to be exploited, subverted and/or split: setting up 'sibling vs. sibling,' so's to speak.

    Reflecting on this, one would have to wonder: just how many of the bombings of Mosques, markets etc. are the products of (CIA/Mossad) black ops? I mean, it only makes sense; blowing up innocent civilians is pretty shocking - but ask yourself: who has the means, motive & opportunity; who has form?

    But - IMHO (always and of course), the very worst, as I can't point out often enough, is the conscious, planned *bad* behaviour of the you-know-which wicked rogue regimes - looping:

      the pinnacle of Anglo/Judaic 'civilisation.'

    Where *bad* = murdering for spoil.

  24. Not just 'BTW;' I don't make this stuff up:

    June 12-14, 2009
    Secrecy Over Data on Bombings Hides Abuses
    The CIA's Drone Wars
      «Press reports that the CIA is paying Pakistani agents for identifying al Qaeda targets by placing electronic chips at farmhouses supposedly inhabited by al Qaeda officials, so they can be bombed by predator planes, has raised new questions about whether the CIA and the Obama administration have simply redefined al Qaeda in order to cover up an abusive system and justify the programme.
    The initial story on the CIA payments for placing the chips by Carol Grisanti and Mushtaq Yusufzai of NBC News Apr. 17 was based on a confession by a 19-year-old in North Waziristan on a video released by the Taliban. In his confession, the young man says, "I was given 122 dollars to drop chips wrapped in a cigarette paper at al Qaida and Taliban houses. If I was successful, I was told, I would be given thousands of dollars."
    He goes on to say, "I thought this was a very easy job. The money was so good so I started throwing the chips all over. I knew people were dying because of what I was doing, but I needed the money."»

    More, a commenter a to Chris Floyd article on Obama's Obscene Speech in Cairo:
      «I think your boycott idea is a good one on a longer-timed scale, but I fear we can't muster enough co-operative people to make the impact that would be needed to really change things. as Grandma Jefferson and Jimmy Montague often point out here, this current collapse of America is going to have to play out to an ugly end, because that sort of ugliness is what's required to awaken the zombie-walk of millions of fat & happy Americans who are highly distracted and unwilling to see problems or their possible solutions. anyone seeking change before that time will have to be willing to stand in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square, or in front of a bulldozer in Palestine. I'm afraid there aren't many Americans who have that sort of backbone or conviction.» 

    Another commenter started his own blog:

    Saturday, June 6, 2009
    not the one in Arizona
      «on the global stage, the USA has spent a good part of the past 40 years playing games of outright war

    funding of insurgent locals
    psychological warfare
    sanctions and blockades
    coups and assassinations

    in the Middle East, primarily in Arab countries, affecting a whole lot of Muslim people. why has the USA done this? it's not because Arab or Muslim people attacked the USA. there's been no act of war upon the USA by any Arab or Muslim peoples as Arab or Muslim peoples. nobody has attacked the USA since Pearl Harbor. so there's no military aggression from Arab or Muslim people toward the USA in the last 40 years, nor in the 40 years prior, to suggest that the USA has any legitimate claim to a right to wage war on Arab or Muslim people.»
    [constructive destruction/Charles F. Oxtrot]

  25. We now have Netanyahu's response to Obama's speech. As expected he has displayed a complete lack of a sense of irony, such as:

    "I call on you, our Palestinian neighbors, and to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority: Let us begin peace negotiations immediately, without preconditions," he said. "Israel is committed to international agreements and expects all the other parties to fulfill their obligations as well." 

    " ...without preconditions"sounds good except:

    Netanyahu also declared that he was prepared to see the creation of a Palestinian state, so long as the international community can guarantee that it not have any military capabilities. 

    Not forgetting:

    The prime minister also said that Palestinians must accept Israel as a Jewish state, and cited the root of the regional conflict to "even moderate" Palestinian elements' refusal to do so. 

    Whoops, there goes the right of return.

    That's just a start and there's more that warrants a chorus of "what about ...?'s".

  26. nothing less ...

     .. than 'Western' civilisation ...

       .. is 'on the line' in occupied Palestine ...

         .. plus the use and meaning of language itself


    Grandiose headline, eh? - G'day Bob. I agree with you, and re-formulate some of your points - for added emphasis.

    The AusBC headline on the 7:00am news termed Netanyahu's speech 'landmark:'

    Netanyahu sets conditions for Palestinian state
    Posted June 15, 2009 05:15:00
      «In a speech outlining his plans for peace, he said he was willing to talk with no preconditions, adding: "We want to live with you in peace as good neighbours."
    For the first time, Mr Netanyahu endorsed the creation of a Palestinian state, saying such an entity would have to be demilitarised and recognise Israel ...»

    Well, on the one hand "no preconditions" and on the other "have to be demilitarised and recognise Israel."

    (Oh, yeah: 'demilitarised' - so the genocide against the Palestinians could be more easily continued?)

    See what I mean about language? But that's a mere "bagatelle" when compared to the threat to so-called 'Western' civilisation. (By 'Western' I really mean Anglo/Judaic, with any other 'hangers on' like France or Germany. If such non Anglo/Judaic wish to swarm along - and getting tarred with the same brush - well, it's a decision for them.)

    It should be pretty clear, by what I mean when I say "that 'Western' civilisation is 'on the line' in occupied Palestine;" to 'revisit' the Russell quote yet again:

      «The tragedy of the people of Palestine is that their country was "given" by a foreign power to another people ...»

    AND add in the 'the right of return' that you (correctly) mentioned, what we have in Israeli-occupied Palestine is perhaps *the* major injustice, post WW2 (at least.)

    I have mentioned the pinnacle of Anglo/Judaic 'civilisation' before, and how there can never be peace without justice.

    Sooo, it's a major test for so-called 'Western' civilisation: when will they right this horrendous wrong?

    What's it to be? a) ever more murder for land, or b) a just peace?

    It's certainly *NOT* about 0.001% of the world's population holding the other 99.999% to ransom (shame!) - it's whether that 99.999% is prepared to stand up and stamp out the wicked injustice that Israeli-occupied Palestine is.


    Same report again:

      «In the landmark speech, Mr Netanyahu said Israel did not want to rule over the Palestinians.» 
    [AusBC, ibid.]

    'Big' of him.

  27. So, the AusBC can use "set conditions" in its headline but fail to mention the "no preconditions" part of the speech. Perhaps that was too revealing of the fraudulence of the speech to highlight. And the speech was drowned in fraudulence.

    Perhaps Netanyahu thinks he can set totally unacceptable conditions and when they are, rightly, not accepted, he can claim to have tried and that the Palestinians are to blame for thwarting the peace process. Well, unfortunately, it has worked that way before.

  28. impeccable logic: impossible conditions = outright fraud ...

     .. Obama knows that ...

       .. Netanyahu knows that ...

         .. even AusBC must know that ...

     - they all *must* know it (Q: What's the alternative - rank and utter, lying idiocy? A: Yes, and worse) - and yet they all talk of a 'peace process,' 61+ years long, and no end in sight (unless the truth is finally acknowledged. Der.)


    So why does the world 'accept' the blatant illogic that is the continued illegal occupation of Palestine by the invading I/J/Z-plex? The continuing injustice of the IDF murdering hapless Palestinians for I/J/Z-plex "Lebensraum?"

    It makes no sense now, and never has.