We Beat the War Party
For now ...
by Justin Raimondo, September 11, 2013
«The key development here wasn’t Kerry’s fumble and the Russian interception but the announcement by majority leader Harry Reid that the Senate vote on the war resolution would be delayed: the War Party simply didn’t have the votes. What the administration discovered, to their horror, was that the more they made their case to the American people the less support they had: every time Kerry opened his mouth, their poll numbers went down a few points, and a few more members of Congress came out against intervention.»
[antiwar/Raimondo]
Comment 1: Poll numbers *should* be respected (after all, the people *are* sovereign); when the world's publics clearly indicate majority no-war support, the warmongers should stop their march to yet another murder-for-spoil outrage.
Comment 2: Oddly enough, I read antiwar - for (amongst other reasons) its war news! There're often quite good reports and occasionally one may learn new things. As usual, I recommend reading the entire item; snips can hardly do justice to the original intended message.
Comment 3: Kerry still hasn't shut up; here's a report of his latest outrage: "John Kerry urges world leaders to 'speak out' on Syria's chemical weapons ahead of UN meeting"
Comment 4: More on this later, but so-called 'world leaders' = governments = regimes (some/many rogue) have to decide sooner or later, will they finally start properly representing the voters' wishes, or will they provoke a revolution? People *must* be able decide their own futures; those who make peaceful progress impossible ensure an eventual violent revolution.
Comment 5: But this blog-item is to reproduce one comment-encounter.
-=*=-
Comments (54 [total but 'only' 14 here])
+8
JJJihad 76p · 1 week ago
If Obama does not attack Syria, it will have nothing to do with
Congress, or the "people," morality, military strategy, US
interests--any of that crap. It will be because the Jews decided the
time no longer was right. Their ultimate goal is to get the US to
destroy the Islamic Republic and install a Shah for another 25 years or
so, giving them more of a free hand to club Hezzbolah and Hamas to death
as they steal all "Judea and Samaria" from nutless quislings like
Abbas. The last thing the ZE wants is a US disaster in Syria. That will
put US war on Iran that much farther out of reach. Besides, Zion is
perfectly content to sit back and watch the Assad factions and the
"rebel" gangs slaughter each other indefinitely. Nothing like a failed
state tearing itself apart to give the History's Most Put Upon People
opportunity for building Leibensraum.
-1
Clarence · 1 week ago
Delusional, paranoid bigotry masquerading as analysis.
It defies reason to claim "the Jews decided" everything. It flies in the face of the facts. One has to maintain a profoundly distorted version of reality driven by a vengeful agenda in order to support such obvious nonsense.
Nobody on Earth has such overwhelming power over events, yet this is precisely the power routinely attributed to "the Jews" by angry, delusional people who care much more about their own hateful agenda than they do about things like accuracy and truth.
It defies reason to claim "the Jews decided" everything. It flies in the face of the facts. One has to maintain a profoundly distorted version of reality driven by a vengeful agenda in order to support such obvious nonsense.
Nobody on Earth has such overwhelming power over events, yet this is precisely the power routinely attributed to "the Jews" by angry, delusional people who care much more about their own hateful agenda than they do about things like accuracy and truth.
+1
aletheia · 1 week ago
@Clarence: "... angry, delusional people who care much more about their
own hateful agenda than they do about things like accuracy and truth."
Me: No; there is nothing at all hateful about merely making neutral observations based on inspection of available facts (see #-points below), and the "hateful agenda" belongs to the aggressive alien Zionist invaders, illegally (not to mention immorally) squatting on improperly alienated land/property (ethnically cleansed by genocidal, murdering violence); by law land never to be theirs. If Clarence (or anyone else) can't see this, IMHO they must be totally blind, by physics, ideology and/or idiocy.
#-points; some *real* (= verifiable) accuracy and truth:
1. Herzl: "Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly ..."
2. Balfour: "For in Palestine we do not propose to even go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country ..."
3. Jabotinsky: "No native population would stomach the intrusion ... Unremitting force ... to Arab objections to Zionist control of the territory."
4. Immigration by Jews into Palestine (1934-48), partly illegal (Aliyah Bet) = alien invasion.
5. Ben-Gurion(1936-39): “We ... are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending ... [they] own the land ...”
6. The King David Hotel bombing was an attack carried out on July 22, 1946 by the militant right-wing Zionist underground organization the Irgun ...
7. Plan Dalet/Deir Yassin (1948) = ethnic-cleansing using genocidal attacks - plus all the other similar, down through the bloody years.
8. "On September 17, 1948, Cohen ... fired inside the car with a MP40 machine gun, killing Bernadotte and his aide, Andre Serot."
...
9 + a few squillions. The latest incursions by the IDF into Gaza; 2008/9 = ~1300 dead Palestinians, again in 2012 = between 158 and 177 Palestinians were killed in that operation.
=====
Here's another way of looking at it:
Consider a crime investigation; means, motive, and opportunity + modus operandi, presence & premeditation then cui bono?
means: Meir, ~$US50mio for arms
motive: Herzl, Zionism
opportunity: Balfour, Holocaust, UNGA181 (text: "an area ... shall be evacuated" - which *no* power on this planet may so order)
modus operandi: Jabotinsky = "Iron Wall" = perpetual aggressive war = murdering violence
presence: before Herzl little, then immigration, partly illegal = alien invasion
premeditation: latest 1897, 1st Z-conference Basel
cui bono? only Zs; US helps, partly against own interests
proof, Ben-Gurion(1936-39): “We must see the situation for what it is. ... But in the political field we are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending themselves. They are living in the country and own the land, ..."
proof, terrorism: King David Hotel bombing
proof, ethnic cleansing: Plan Dalet, ~700,000 forced from homes
proof, genocidal methods: Deir Yassin & etc., Gaza '08/9, continues
observation: erstwhile legal owner/occupiers displaced by violence
observation: Israel squats on improperly alienated land/property
observation: a war between recent immigrants and long-time natives is neither a 'civil' war, nor war of 'independence’ but aggressive invasion (partly by stealth) - see next
summary: fits description of "supreme international crime"
further;
UNGA181 specified Palestinian state, still none.
UNGA194 specified Palestinian right of return, still out.
UNGA273 cites 181 & 194, *accepted* by Israel, *still* not honoured
UNSC242 inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war
Q: What is wrong with this picture?
A: Israel is an active/un-remedied crime scene, of the Nuremberg-class.
Q: Why does the world tolerate it?
Q: What if anything am I missing?
Compare to a burglary/home invasion with deadly violence; SWAT teams are sent in, the perpetrators brought to justice and all stolen property revests, with reparations paid by those found guilty.
Q: Why are we kept waiting, for truth + justice = peace?
=====
The use of "hateful" is absolutely wrong vis-à-vis my work; "anger" is correct; anger that the Zs are so hateful as to mass-murder for spoil, then tell the most outrageous lies to try to disguise their vicious crimes. Enough.
=====
Clarence may be unfortunately ignorant, more likely an hasbarist, in any case has malice aforethought (proof = deploying "hateful") - care to confess? No? Thought not; another nail in the coffin.
Me: No; there is nothing at all hateful about merely making neutral observations based on inspection of available facts (see #-points below), and the "hateful agenda" belongs to the aggressive alien Zionist invaders, illegally (not to mention immorally) squatting on improperly alienated land/property (ethnically cleansed by genocidal, murdering violence); by law land never to be theirs. If Clarence (or anyone else) can't see this, IMHO they must be totally blind, by physics, ideology and/or idiocy.
#-points; some *real* (= verifiable) accuracy and truth:
1. Herzl: "Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly ..."
2. Balfour: "For in Palestine we do not propose to even go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country ..."
3. Jabotinsky: "No native population would stomach the intrusion ... Unremitting force ... to Arab objections to Zionist control of the territory."
4. Immigration by Jews into Palestine (1934-48), partly illegal (Aliyah Bet) = alien invasion.
5. Ben-Gurion(1936-39): “We ... are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending ... [they] own the land ...”
6. The King David Hotel bombing was an attack carried out on July 22, 1946 by the militant right-wing Zionist underground organization the Irgun ...
7. Plan Dalet/Deir Yassin (1948) = ethnic-cleansing using genocidal attacks - plus all the other similar, down through the bloody years.
8. "On September 17, 1948, Cohen ... fired inside the car with a MP40 machine gun, killing Bernadotte and his aide, Andre Serot."
...
9 + a few squillions. The latest incursions by the IDF into Gaza; 2008/9 = ~1300 dead Palestinians, again in 2012 = between 158 and 177 Palestinians were killed in that operation.
=====
Here's another way of looking at it:
Consider a crime investigation; means, motive, and opportunity + modus operandi, presence & premeditation then cui bono?
means: Meir, ~$US50mio for arms
motive: Herzl, Zionism
opportunity: Balfour, Holocaust, UNGA181 (text: "an area ... shall be evacuated" - which *no* power on this planet may so order)
modus operandi: Jabotinsky = "Iron Wall" = perpetual aggressive war = murdering violence
presence: before Herzl little, then immigration, partly illegal = alien invasion
premeditation: latest 1897, 1st Z-conference Basel
cui bono? only Zs; US helps, partly against own interests
proof, Ben-Gurion(1936-39): “We must see the situation for what it is. ... But in the political field we are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending themselves. They are living in the country and own the land, ..."
proof, terrorism: King David Hotel bombing
proof, ethnic cleansing: Plan Dalet, ~700,000 forced from homes
proof, genocidal methods: Deir Yassin & etc., Gaza '08/9, continues
observation: erstwhile legal owner/occupiers displaced by violence
observation: Israel squats on improperly alienated land/property
observation: a war between recent immigrants and long-time natives is neither a 'civil' war, nor war of 'independence’ but aggressive invasion (partly by stealth) - see next
summary: fits description of "supreme international crime"
further;
UNGA181 specified Palestinian state, still none.
UNGA194 specified Palestinian right of return, still out.
UNGA273 cites 181 & 194, *accepted* by Israel, *still* not honoured
UNSC242 inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war
Q: What is wrong with this picture?
A: Israel is an active/un-remedied crime scene, of the Nuremberg-class.
Q: Why does the world tolerate it?
Q: What if anything am I missing?
Compare to a burglary/home invasion with deadly violence; SWAT teams are sent in, the perpetrators brought to justice and all stolen property revests, with reparations paid by those found guilty.
Q: Why are we kept waiting, for truth + justice = peace?
=====
The use of "hateful" is absolutely wrong vis-à-vis my work; "anger" is correct; anger that the Zs are so hateful as to mass-murder for spoil, then tell the most outrageous lies to try to disguise their vicious crimes. Enough.
=====
Clarence may be unfortunately ignorant, more likely an hasbarist, in any case has malice aforethought (proof = deploying "hateful") - care to confess? No? Thought not; another nail in the coffin.
0
Clarence · 1 week ago
You can't refute a simple, straightforward point, so you create a
diversion and throw the whole kitchen sink at me. It's clearly an
indefensible falsehood to attribute world-dominating power to an entire
ethnic group consisting of millions of people scattered around the world
with the claim that "the Jews decided" the course of events. This is a
wild distortion based in paranoia and hatred; if a mob believes this
lie, history strongly suggests that, in the event of an economic or
other calamity, such a mob will attack members of the ethnic minority
being blamed. That's why I called attention to it.
All you're doing is expending a long-winded effort at justifying racial hatred and scapegoating which has led in the past to genocidal massacres. If you believe that Israel is a "crime scene", and you yourself are an apologist for disgruntled, hateful people who long for a different type of crime scene, then what your rant really amounts to is "two wrongs make a right".
All you're doing is expending a long-winded effort at justifying racial hatred and scapegoating which has led in the past to genocidal massacres. If you believe that Israel is a "crime scene", and you yourself are an apologist for disgruntled, hateful people who long for a different type of crime scene, then what your rant really amounts to is "two wrongs make a right".
+1
aletheia · 1 week ago
@Clarence: "You can't refute a simple, straightforward point, ..."
Me: No.
Examine the words Clarence 1st posted: "Delusional, paranoid bigotry masquerading ... defies reason ... flies in the face of the facts ... maintain a profoundly distorted version of reality driven by a vengeful agenda ..." and so on, finishing with: "hateful agenda ... accuracy and truth." As if.
What Clarence 1st posted is not "a simple, straightforward point" but is itself 99% "hate speech," attacking JJJihad, who wrote approaching 100% truth.
What I wrote, what Clarence calls "the whole kitchen sink [thrown at him]" is a literal, but only a part-listing, of the villainy of the murdering thieves of the ELO/Os' = erstwhile legal owner/occupiers' land/property, in the place once referred to as Mandate Palestine. What I wrote is necessary information for people who otherwise get their information from the MSM+PFCBs, because those corrupt&venal news-gatekeepers have suppressed certain inconvenient truths since, say, Plan Dalet, inspired by Jabotinsky's perpetual aggressive war.
It is not a diversion, but the central theme. That some of the I/J/Z-plex (self-explanatory term) proudly boast that the US Congress is "Israeli occupied territory" - err ... actually gives a big part of the game away?
The *real* (= verifiable) "simple, straightforward point" is that a certain illegitimate entity, thrust into the ME by the I/J/Z-plex with UK and US assistance is *exactly* as described, namely an un-remedied, supreme international crime scene - and *not* incidentally, also the greatest self-inflicted humiliation the world is ever likely to see.
Imagine; the I/J/Z-plex' Lebensraum was not purchased in free and fair transactions, like the rest of the world has to do, but stolen at the point of guns, including vicious terrorism and mass-murder of innocent, legal residents. Guns purchased by Meir's $50mio, raised in the US, where the other half of the I/J/Z-plex lives - as parasites and puppet-masters both - and yes, directing the US war machine; Iraq & Libya smashed, now Syria in progress, Iran planned next. One half of the I/J/Z-plex living on stolen land, the other as 5th columnists, aiming the US' guns. JJJihad is correct. What I utterly despise is liars, cheats, thieves and murderers.
Me: No.
Examine the words Clarence 1st posted: "Delusional, paranoid bigotry masquerading ... defies reason ... flies in the face of the facts ... maintain a profoundly distorted version of reality driven by a vengeful agenda ..." and so on, finishing with: "hateful agenda ... accuracy and truth." As if.
What Clarence 1st posted is not "a simple, straightforward point" but is itself 99% "hate speech," attacking JJJihad, who wrote approaching 100% truth.
What I wrote, what Clarence calls "the whole kitchen sink [thrown at him]" is a literal, but only a part-listing, of the villainy of the murdering thieves of the ELO/Os' = erstwhile legal owner/occupiers' land/property, in the place once referred to as Mandate Palestine. What I wrote is necessary information for people who otherwise get their information from the MSM+PFCBs, because those corrupt&venal news-gatekeepers have suppressed certain inconvenient truths since, say, Plan Dalet, inspired by Jabotinsky's perpetual aggressive war.
It is not a diversion, but the central theme. That some of the I/J/Z-plex (self-explanatory term) proudly boast that the US Congress is "Israeli occupied territory" - err ... actually gives a big part of the game away?
The *real* (= verifiable) "simple, straightforward point" is that a certain illegitimate entity, thrust into the ME by the I/J/Z-plex with UK and US assistance is *exactly* as described, namely an un-remedied, supreme international crime scene - and *not* incidentally, also the greatest self-inflicted humiliation the world is ever likely to see.
Imagine; the I/J/Z-plex' Lebensraum was not purchased in free and fair transactions, like the rest of the world has to do, but stolen at the point of guns, including vicious terrorism and mass-murder of innocent, legal residents. Guns purchased by Meir's $50mio, raised in the US, where the other half of the I/J/Z-plex lives - as parasites and puppet-masters both - and yes, directing the US war machine; Iraq & Libya smashed, now Syria in progress, Iran planned next. One half of the I/J/Z-plex living on stolen land, the other as 5th columnists, aiming the US' guns. JJJihad is correct. What I utterly despise is liars, cheats, thieves and murderers.
0
Clarence · 6 days ago
Like I said, you can't refute a straightforward point. You still
haven't even begun to defend the coherence and validity of JJ's wildly
paranoid claim (i.e. that a small, scattered ethnic minority should be
blamed for deciding the course of world events). You'd rather play
visiting professor, digress and rant, and refer to me in the third
person as if I'm Exhibit A for your students. Yet more proof of your
deluded approach to political analysis, not that any more is necessary
once you wrote, "JJJihad, who wrote approaching 100% truth".
"the greatest self-inflicted humiliation the world is ever likely to see"
Hysteria piled on top of delusional incompetence. The European genocide that made the case for Israel's founding more urgent was indeed a self-inflicted humiliation by Europeans, led by Germans. Sending boatloads of refugees back across the oceans to face the gas chambers -- because there wasn't yet an Israel to receive them, and the Brits had cut off immigration anyway -- was yet another self-inflicted humiliation, something John Kerry referred to with shame just a few days ago. Such are the self-inflicted humiliations that persist in the world, but you wouldn't understand because you've got everything precisely backwards!
According to wikipedia, aletheia means "the state of not being hidden; the state of being evident ... it also implies sincerity, as well as factuality or reality."
What a shame that you can't live up to your own chosen standard. There's nothing congruous with "factuality or reality" in JJ's paranoid, malicious claim, which you heartily endorse. And for someone whose moniker suggests he cares about things "not being hidden'', your unreadable writing style makes meaning obscure, not evident. Learn how to write clearly and address your opponents directly.
"the greatest self-inflicted humiliation the world is ever likely to see"
Hysteria piled on top of delusional incompetence. The European genocide that made the case for Israel's founding more urgent was indeed a self-inflicted humiliation by Europeans, led by Germans. Sending boatloads of refugees back across the oceans to face the gas chambers -- because there wasn't yet an Israel to receive them, and the Brits had cut off immigration anyway -- was yet another self-inflicted humiliation, something John Kerry referred to with shame just a few days ago. Such are the self-inflicted humiliations that persist in the world, but you wouldn't understand because you've got everything precisely backwards!
According to wikipedia, aletheia means "the state of not being hidden; the state of being evident ... it also implies sincerity, as well as factuality or reality."
What a shame that you can't live up to your own chosen standard. There's nothing congruous with "factuality or reality" in JJ's paranoid, malicious claim, which you heartily endorse. And for someone whose moniker suggests he cares about things "not being hidden'', your unreadable writing style makes meaning obscure, not evident. Learn how to write clearly and address your opponents directly.
0
gand harrison · 5 days ago
Censorship (of fair comment)
is a crime against democracy; practitioners a) kill their own
credibility but worse b) make themselves part of the problem, c)
compromising the quest for truth and justice.
[Note: the censored comment is copied in here.]
2013-09-14
antiwar censor-robot active - grrr!
Some keywords (hence the XXXs below) trigger the shunting of comment-input onto the 'moderation' queue; IF we knew THEN we could possibly avoid this annoyance. Of course, it's their right...
Update, 14Sep 08:51: Unfortunately, I overlooked "the Jews decided" in a Clarence quote, which triggered the antiwar censor-bot. But then some IMHO (un)democratic criminal person killed = deleted my input. You may read it for yourself and decide:
Input (to antiwar Raimondo We Beat the War Party - For now ... (re Clarence - aletheia exchange)):
The prime-crime (land/property theft by mass-murdering violence = ethnic cleansing by genocidal methods) is visible to all who look, as illustrated in the #-points above, along with means, motive, and opportunity etc.. Anyone is welcome to challenge anything with this advice: aletheia is dedicated to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and that truth to be exposed. I do my best.
Reviewing critical points:
From a book written in 1895-6, “The XXX-ish question persists wherever XXXs live in appreciable numbers. Wherever it does not exist, it is brought in together with XXX-ish immigrants.”
Observation: Wherever they go, they *cause* an hostile reaction. It's only natural, that they might seek relief. On the principal of 'prevention is preferred to cure,' one might expect relief to be sought somewhere *without* neighbours to vex, but no such cleverness. By 1905, the 'final destination' was chosen, but note: *Not* a 'land without people.' The vexing followed as night follows day (the natives were not only restless, but driven to rioting), the XXXs sought assistance by lobbying the British (lobbying = coercing, threatening, bribing etc., see Mafia-methods); result = the Balfour sell-out, 1917. That was obviously insufficient for Jabotinsky, ~1923: “only active retaliation would deter ... only ... armed force would ensure ...” = perpetual war (Sounds like Obama/Kerry; plus ça change). This was admitted and consolidated by Ben-Gurion(1936-39): “We ... are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending ... [they] own the land ...” Then add Plan Dalet/massacres (continuing sporadically to this day), and the rest is history.
Now, to JJJihad's «steal all "Judea and Samaria"» etc., which Clarence 1st *rewrote* as «It defies reason to claim "the Jews decided" everything. It flies in the face of the facts» and to prove that was no accident, Clarence then *reiterated* it as «i.e. that a small, scattered ethnic minority should be blamed for deciding the course of world events». Clarence demonstrates an active, if erring, imagination (and possibly megalomaniacal tendencies).
Given that neither of Clarence's rewrites were what JJJihad wrote, consider "straw man," "red herring" and "non sequitur" etc.. Clarence deploys fallacies along with bad words and attacks the messenger = "ad homiminem," another fallacy. This is not a surprise. Of course criminals lie, to do otherwise would be to self-convict. Note that along with lying, criminals are generally considered outcasts, and IMHO differ from normal, law abiding citizens so much, as to be considered ill (i.e. psychopaths). As the prime-crime is blindingly obvious (after circumventing the lie-cloud attempted disguise), so apologists must also lie, dissemble, obfuscate and generally attempt to deceive. Say "Hello," Clarence.
Briefly, to Clarence's own 'reason-defying' claim, consider that the ME countries on the WC7in5 list are all considered to be Z-enemies AND the US is working through that list, PLUS the US considers itself 'Lord of all creation,' THEN accusing Zs of "deciding the course of world events" is not at all far-fetched, even quite possible. The alternate thesis, that the US and Zs are only *coincidentally* on the same destructive, murdering for spoil (one soil, the other oil) path is disproven by the USS Liberty incident - where Zs mass-murdered US citizens with impunity, in the outrageous attempt to sink a US warship. The USS Liberty incident shows which is the tail and which the dog (recall Mafia-methods = coercing, threatening, bribing etc., add killing). But nevertheless, *the* substantial issue here is not who may run the world (or what a bad job they're doing), but the un-remedied Z-crime-scene; an entity illegally squatting on improperly alienated land has *no* legitimacy (and never did), and nothing the Zs do and/or their apologists say has any legitimacy either. Oh, and not so BTW, nobody may claim the right to defend stolen land/property; another deception bites the dust.
=====
0
aletheia · less than 1 minute ago
Your comment must be approved by the site admins before it will appear publicly.
grrr! 10:59.
Update: 1hr later; comment-count up by one, but comment still not there...
Update, 14Sep 08:51: Unfortunately, I overlooked "the Jews decided" in a Clarence quote, which triggered the antiwar censor-bot. But then some IMHO (un)democratic criminal person killed = deleted my input. You may read it for yourself and decide:
Input (to antiwar Raimondo We Beat the War Party - For now ... (re Clarence - aletheia exchange)):
The prime-crime (land/property theft by mass-murdering violence = ethnic cleansing by genocidal methods) is visible to all who look, as illustrated in the #-points above, along with means, motive, and opportunity etc.. Anyone is welcome to challenge anything with this advice: aletheia is dedicated to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and that truth to be exposed. I do my best.
Reviewing critical points:
From a book written in 1895-6, “The XXX-ish question persists wherever XXXs live in appreciable numbers. Wherever it does not exist, it is brought in together with XXX-ish immigrants.”
Observation: Wherever they go, they *cause* an hostile reaction. It's only natural, that they might seek relief. On the principal of 'prevention is preferred to cure,' one might expect relief to be sought somewhere *without* neighbours to vex, but no such cleverness. By 1905, the 'final destination' was chosen, but note: *Not* a 'land without people.' The vexing followed as night follows day (the natives were not only restless, but driven to rioting), the XXXs sought assistance by lobbying the British (lobbying = coercing, threatening, bribing etc., see Mafia-methods); result = the Balfour sell-out, 1917. That was obviously insufficient for Jabotinsky, ~1923: “only active retaliation would deter ... only ... armed force would ensure ...” = perpetual war (Sounds like Obama/Kerry; plus ça change). This was admitted and consolidated by Ben-Gurion(1936-39): “We ... are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending ... [they] own the land ...” Then add Plan Dalet/massacres (continuing sporadically to this day), and the rest is history.
Now, to JJJihad's «steal all "Judea and Samaria"» etc., which Clarence 1st *rewrote* as «It defies reason to claim "the Jews decided" everything. It flies in the face of the facts» and to prove that was no accident, Clarence then *reiterated* it as «i.e. that a small, scattered ethnic minority should be blamed for deciding the course of world events». Clarence demonstrates an active, if erring, imagination (and possibly megalomaniacal tendencies).
Given that neither of Clarence's rewrites were what JJJihad wrote, consider "straw man," "red herring" and "non sequitur" etc.. Clarence deploys fallacies along with bad words and attacks the messenger = "ad homiminem," another fallacy. This is not a surprise. Of course criminals lie, to do otherwise would be to self-convict. Note that along with lying, criminals are generally considered outcasts, and IMHO differ from normal, law abiding citizens so much, as to be considered ill (i.e. psychopaths). As the prime-crime is blindingly obvious (after circumventing the lie-cloud attempted disguise), so apologists must also lie, dissemble, obfuscate and generally attempt to deceive. Say "Hello," Clarence.
Briefly, to Clarence's own 'reason-defying' claim, consider that the ME countries on the WC7in5 list are all considered to be Z-enemies AND the US is working through that list, PLUS the US considers itself 'Lord of all creation,' THEN accusing Zs of "deciding the course of world events" is not at all far-fetched, even quite possible. The alternate thesis, that the US and Zs are only *coincidentally* on the same destructive, murdering for spoil (one soil, the other oil) path is disproven by the USS Liberty incident - where Zs mass-murdered US citizens with impunity, in the outrageous attempt to sink a US warship. The USS Liberty incident shows which is the tail and which the dog (recall Mafia-methods = coercing, threatening, bribing etc., add killing). But nevertheless, *the* substantial issue here is not who may run the world (or what a bad job they're doing), but the un-remedied Z-crime-scene; an entity illegally squatting on improperly alienated land has *no* legitimacy (and never did), and nothing the Zs do and/or their apologists say has any legitimacy either. Oh, and not so BTW, nobody may claim the right to defend stolen land/property; another deception bites the dust.
=====
0
aletheia · less than 1 minute ago
Your comment must be approved by the site admins before it will appear publicly.
grrr! 10:59.
Update: 1hr later; comment-count up by one, but comment still not there...
0
Clarence · 3 days ago
Fascinating ... so you believe that anyone who says anything pro-Israel
automatically becomes an apologist for crime. Folks can sing the
praises of any country on Earth without becoming accomplices to criminal
activity, but say one thing good about Israel and you're an outlaw.
Convenient little double standard you're operating with there.
Just as convenient is your seeming pretense that Israel is the only nation born in controversy and war. Not like every other nation in the world, of course, which all came to be by the most peaceful, civilized, generous and humanitarian methods imaginable.
Your prejudiced double standards make your condescending commentary a joke.
Just as convenient is your seeming pretense that Israel is the only nation born in controversy and war. Not like every other nation in the world, of course, which all came to be by the most peaceful, civilized, generous and humanitarian methods imaginable.
Your prejudiced double standards make your condescending commentary a joke.
0
richard vajs · 3 days ago
I too am an unapologetic critic of Israel. Also as you say, Israel is
not the only nasty, apartheid state in the World, but - and this is a
big but - we support this nasty country with its hateful attitude
towards all of its neighbors. We didn't support the old South African
apartheid governmen t, we don't support North Korea and their lunacy, so
why do we have to support Israel. We support it with taxpayer's
dollars, the blood of our military and our hypocritical diplomacy -
sowing discord throughout the Middle East. That is the origin of your
"double standards". Cut my country loose from serving the goals of your
monstrous country and I would be content to see Israel just reap the
seeds that it is sowing.
0
aletheia · 2 days ago
@richard vajs: "I too am an unapologetic critic of Israel. ... Cut my
country loose from serving the goals of your monstrous country ..."
Me: Yes; your criticism is well-founded, but in addition, consider this definition:
accomplice n. partner in a crime etc. [Latin: related to *complex]
As it stands, the US & Z rogue-regimes are accomplices, both murdering for spoil; one soil, the other oil - their criminality is complementary. Then, it's not up to the Zs to cut the US loose on two grounds a) the Zs cannot be asked for anything (understanding only power = force), and b) we can never expect the Zs to be nice anyway, it's simply not part of their make-up.
The US *Congress* could cut itself loose from the Z-criminals IF: a) they got some (good) morals and b) bipartisanly rejected all filthy 5th column lobbying = coercion and bribes OR c) the electorate rejected all sell-out, quisling traitors as representatives, see next.
The US *electorate* could cut itself loose from the Z-criminals IF: a) the US democracy worked 'as designed,' namely as a proper "of, by, for the people" democracy AND the people were not continually lied to by their so-called 'leaders' via, and often with *active assistance* from the US-MMH = Media (aka press, radio + TV), Madison Ave. and Hollywood.
As it is, we the people of the world must act resolutely; we must attempt a *total* BDS against Zs and their supporters, plus absolute, loud and continuous condemnation of their wicked crimes. The UN is the correct agency for bringing rogue-regimes to justice - but the UN, sadly, seems corrupt, proof: Ban Ki Moon sounds very much like he's preparing to 'bless' a US,F+UK aggressive attack on Syria. Ban Ki Moon's job is to *stop* war, so far no success, just like Annan before him, and of course, the UN has been particularly ineffective in stopping the Zs. Coming full-circle, a big reason for UN ineffectiveness is the US veto. The Zs cannot stand alone, they are both parasites and puppet-masters; the tail insults the dog as it wags it. Big humiliation, US.
Me: Yes; your criticism is well-founded, but in addition, consider this definition:
accomplice n. partner in a crime etc. [Latin: related to *complex]
As it stands, the US & Z rogue-regimes are accomplices, both murdering for spoil; one soil, the other oil - their criminality is complementary. Then, it's not up to the Zs to cut the US loose on two grounds a) the Zs cannot be asked for anything (understanding only power = force), and b) we can never expect the Zs to be nice anyway, it's simply not part of their make-up.
The US *Congress* could cut itself loose from the Z-criminals IF: a) they got some (good) morals and b) bipartisanly rejected all filthy 5th column lobbying = coercion and bribes OR c) the electorate rejected all sell-out, quisling traitors as representatives, see next.
The US *electorate* could cut itself loose from the Z-criminals IF: a) the US democracy worked 'as designed,' namely as a proper "of, by, for the people" democracy AND the people were not continually lied to by their so-called 'leaders' via, and often with *active assistance* from the US-MMH = Media (aka press, radio + TV), Madison Ave. and Hollywood.
As it is, we the people of the world must act resolutely; we must attempt a *total* BDS against Zs and their supporters, plus absolute, loud and continuous condemnation of their wicked crimes. The UN is the correct agency for bringing rogue-regimes to justice - but the UN, sadly, seems corrupt, proof: Ban Ki Moon sounds very much like he's preparing to 'bless' a US,F+UK aggressive attack on Syria. Ban Ki Moon's job is to *stop* war, so far no success, just like Annan before him, and of course, the UN has been particularly ineffective in stopping the Zs. Coming full-circle, a big reason for UN ineffectiveness is the US veto. The Zs cannot stand alone, they are both parasites and puppet-masters; the tail insults the dog as it wags it. Big humiliation, US.
0
Clarence · 3 days ago
It's not "my" country. That's an assumption on your part. I'm just some
guy saying things in defense of Israel while the rest of you play
offense. You don't know who I am or where I'm from. Does your inaccurate
assumption suggest that you believe only a resident of Israel would be
willing to defend it?
Unlike the others in this thread, at least you admit the double standards are real. (Of course, that's like admitting the sun is real, but it's astounding how hard it is for some people to admit the obvious.) Israel is singled out for censure like no other nation, even though the origin of so many nations was bloody and horrific. It must be a blissful thing for your moralizing colleagues to be so self-righteously indignant while pretending they have a shred of credibility. I wonder what "monstrous" savagery lurks in their own heritage...
By the way, it's truly rich for you to claim that Israel has a "hateful attitude towards all of its neighbors". If you had any actual FACTS at your disposal, you'd know that Israel routinely saves the lives of sick and injured Palestinians, and lately they've been treating wounded Syrians too. You and your buddies constantly devour propaganda that makes demons out of Israelis, but you never hear any accounts of their humanity, so naturally you believe it's a "monstrous" place. You know only a caricature of Israelis, and that's all you're content to know, thus you consume news at sites where you'll have your biases (and your ignorance) reinforced.
Just read what Palestinians and their fellow Arabs learn in their schools and mosques and media about their Semitic cousins in Israel and then you'll know which side wallows in a "hateful attitude towards all of its neighbors". That's so self-evident I shouldn't even have to spell it out, but apparently you're so misinformed you actually think it's Israel that promotes hatred of its neighbors and not the reverse.
Unlike the others in this thread, at least you admit the double standards are real. (Of course, that's like admitting the sun is real, but it's astounding how hard it is for some people to admit the obvious.) Israel is singled out for censure like no other nation, even though the origin of so many nations was bloody and horrific. It must be a blissful thing for your moralizing colleagues to be so self-righteously indignant while pretending they have a shred of credibility. I wonder what "monstrous" savagery lurks in their own heritage...
By the way, it's truly rich for you to claim that Israel has a "hateful attitude towards all of its neighbors". If you had any actual FACTS at your disposal, you'd know that Israel routinely saves the lives of sick and injured Palestinians, and lately they've been treating wounded Syrians too. You and your buddies constantly devour propaganda that makes demons out of Israelis, but you never hear any accounts of their humanity, so naturally you believe it's a "monstrous" place. You know only a caricature of Israelis, and that's all you're content to know, thus you consume news at sites where you'll have your biases (and your ignorance) reinforced.
Just read what Palestinians and their fellow Arabs learn in their schools and mosques and media about their Semitic cousins in Israel and then you'll know which side wallows in a "hateful attitude towards all of its neighbors". That's so self-evident I shouldn't even have to spell it out, but apparently you're so misinformed you actually think it's Israel that promotes hatred of its neighbors and not the reverse.
0
aletheia · 3 days ago
@Clarence: “It's not "my" country.”
Me: Hmmm; so what's Clarence's angle?
Clarence: “I'm just some guy saying things in defense ...”
Me: Ah, a dabbler, defending continuing supreme international crime.
@Clarence: “while the rest of you play offense.”
Me: But this is not a game. Pardon me if I doubt Clarence's veracity, integrity and morals. We could discuss two options; a) Clarence is *not* a member of the I/J/Z-plex, or b) he is. Personally, I don't care, since it's usually not who says what, but what is said. But there is enough material here showing that Clarence catapults much of the standard Z-propaganda, more than enough to make one go "Hmmm." Take only one example, the direction of any purported 'hatred,' the word itself is a keyword more often used by one specific group than any other. On a different track, we could discuss three options; a) erring ideology (defending crime) b) outright ignorance (ignoring evidence) and/or or c) malice aforethought. (Proof of latter, Clarence's own very 1st words: "Delusional, paranoid bigotry masquerading as analysis.") Back at ya, Clarence; refer “First remove the beam out of your own eye, ...”
Readers will no doubt form their own conclusions as is usual, but as far as I'm concerned, there is a smoking gun:
Ben-Gurion(1936-39): “We must see the situation for what it is. ... But in the political field we are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending themselves. They are living in the country and own the land, ... ”
Plus “Iron Wall” confirmation of premeditated murdering violence, extending to perpetual, aggressive war. Ignoring evidence has a name (refer to '1st words' above); IMHO Clarence could not be further in the wrong; my sympathies lie with the victims, not the aggressive alien attackers.
To Clarence: "Be ashamed."
Me: Hmmm; so what's Clarence's angle?
Clarence: “I'm just some guy saying things in defense ...”
Me: Ah, a dabbler, defending continuing supreme international crime.
@Clarence: “while the rest of you play offense.”
Me: But this is not a game. Pardon me if I doubt Clarence's veracity, integrity and morals. We could discuss two options; a) Clarence is *not* a member of the I/J/Z-plex, or b) he is. Personally, I don't care, since it's usually not who says what, but what is said. But there is enough material here showing that Clarence catapults much of the standard Z-propaganda, more than enough to make one go "Hmmm." Take only one example, the direction of any purported 'hatred,' the word itself is a keyword more often used by one specific group than any other. On a different track, we could discuss three options; a) erring ideology (defending crime) b) outright ignorance (ignoring evidence) and/or or c) malice aforethought. (Proof of latter, Clarence's own very 1st words: "Delusional, paranoid bigotry masquerading as analysis.") Back at ya, Clarence; refer “First remove the beam out of your own eye, ...”
Readers will no doubt form their own conclusions as is usual, but as far as I'm concerned, there is a smoking gun:
Ben-Gurion(1936-39): “We must see the situation for what it is. ... But in the political field we are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending themselves. They are living in the country and own the land, ... ”
Plus “Iron Wall” confirmation of premeditated murdering violence, extending to perpetual, aggressive war. Ignoring evidence has a name (refer to '1st words' above); IMHO Clarence could not be further in the wrong; my sympathies lie with the victims, not the aggressive alien attackers.
To Clarence: "Be ashamed."
0
richard vajs · 3 days ago
It's not "your" country - you fooled me. I know how the Israelis treat
the Palestinians and it sure isn't with free medical care. My source is
the Christian Peacekeepers and my personal interaction with some of
those. They talk about the hateful things that the "settlers" do to
Palestinian schoolchildren, to their animals, to what little land the
Palestinians have left, their olive groves, etc. The Israeli settlers
seize land that is not theirs, build their little stronghold, run around
unarmed people with their machine guns and do cute stunts like pump
their untreated sewage through long pipes to dump on Palestinian land
for the Arab kids to play in.
Not that the Israelis neglect public relations - I distinctly remember the Israelis barging into the earthquake disaster in Haiti - they got early priority landing rights at the halfway functioning airport to set up their big tent to make a big splash and get on the news and then quickly folded their tent and left. Meanwhile dedicated doctors from Cuba actually treated the victims, before and after the Israeli PR stunt.
But as I said - I am willing to let Israel alone to reap the nasty crop that they are sowing - without US alliance. I would just feel cleaner if we could get out of any doings with them.
Not that the Israelis neglect public relations - I distinctly remember the Israelis barging into the earthquake disaster in Haiti - they got early priority landing rights at the halfway functioning airport to set up their big tent to make a big splash and get on the news and then quickly folded their tent and left. Meanwhile dedicated doctors from Cuba actually treated the victims, before and after the Israeli PR stunt.
But as I said - I am willing to let Israel alone to reap the nasty crop that they are sowing - without US alliance. I would just feel cleaner if we could get out of any doings with them.
0
aletheia · 3 days ago
@Clarence: "Fascinating ... so you believe ..."
Me: No. Clarence has a 'mind-reading' problem; s/he cannot possibly know what I may believe. Further, since 'belief' can be based on *zero* information (and/or likely to be outright wrong), I *do not* believe (or sing) as a rule, but prefer proof, via substantiable facts - as above.
Clarence: "anyone who says anything pro-Israel automatically becomes an apologist for crime."
Me: Yes. Proof: Zs squat on improperly alienated land/property = murder for spoil = crime, then look up 'apologist.'
Clarence: "without becoming accomplices to criminal activity, ...."
Me: No. Clarence morphing 'apologist' into 'accomplice' is another "straw man" fallacy.
Clarence: "... and [X is] an outlaw."
Me: Yes, for X = accomplice OR apologist. At any crime-scene, there are one or more perpetrators, possibly accessories, possibly apologists and possibly witnesses who, if they remain inactive ('duty to assist victims'), form part of the group of more or less guilty participants.
If the shoe fits (all I/J/Z-plex except active dissenters), wear it.
Clarence: "... seeming pretense [that Zs'] is the only nation born in controversy and war."
Me: Next fallacy, namely a form of tu quoque; the accused's guilt is not reduced by others' and I pretend nothing, see proof - as above.
Clarence: "... Your prejudiced double standards make ..."
Me: Ad hominem fallacy - again. Always, the abuse.
Just the one *gold* standard, truth + justice = peace - no joke.
Me: No. Clarence has a 'mind-reading' problem; s/he cannot possibly know what I may believe. Further, since 'belief' can be based on *zero* information (and/or likely to be outright wrong), I *do not* believe (or sing) as a rule, but prefer proof, via substantiable facts - as above.
Clarence: "anyone who says anything pro-Israel automatically becomes an apologist for crime."
Me: Yes. Proof: Zs squat on improperly alienated land/property = murder for spoil = crime, then look up 'apologist.'
Clarence: "without becoming accomplices to criminal activity, ...."
Me: No. Clarence morphing 'apologist' into 'accomplice' is another "straw man" fallacy.
Clarence: "... and [X is] an outlaw."
Me: Yes, for X = accomplice OR apologist. At any crime-scene, there are one or more perpetrators, possibly accessories, possibly apologists and possibly witnesses who, if they remain inactive ('duty to assist victims'), form part of the group of more or less guilty participants.
If the shoe fits (all I/J/Z-plex except active dissenters), wear it.
Clarence: "... seeming pretense [that Zs'] is the only nation born in controversy and war."
Me: Next fallacy, namely a form of tu quoque; the accused's guilt is not reduced by others' and I pretend nothing, see proof - as above.
Clarence: "... Your prejudiced double standards make ..."
Me: Ad hominem fallacy - again. Always, the abuse.
Just the one *gold* standard, truth + justice = peace - no joke.
Fazit: Of course, Clarence eventually decided shutting-up was his best option. But his comments, IMHO, are pretty standard for lying hasbarists.
-=*end*=-
Ref(s):
[1] deceive v. (-ving) 1 make (a person) believe what is false; purposely mislead. 2 be unfaithful to, esp. sexually. 3 use deceit. deceive oneself persist in a mistaken belief. deceiver n. [POD]
[2] 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] [ibid.]
[3] conspiracy n. (pl. -ies) 1 secret plan to commit a crime; plot. 2 conspiring. [Latin: related to *conspire] [ibid.]
Abbreviations:
ELO/Os = erstwhile legal owner/occupiers
I/J/Z-plex; illegitimate IL squats on genocidally ethnically-cleansed = improperly alienated, mainly Palestinian ELO/Os' land/property = IL is an un-remedied crime-scene and *all* I/J/Z-plex (except any actively opposing) are guilty; sole remedy = reparations = revest where possible, adequate = acceptable recompense where not + *sincere* apology
M/I/C/$4a†-plex = military, industrial, Congress (US-speak for parliament); $ = banksters, 4 = 4th estate = MSM+PFBCs, 'a' = academia incl. think-tanks, † = the churches.
MSM = mainstream media (print and broadcast), aka 'corrupt&venal'
neoliberalism = 'economic rationalism,' 'supply-side,' (wicked) privatisations, 'small govt.' = minimised to no égalité etc. + globalisation = wage arbitration etc. = <1% rips off 99%+
PFBCs = publicly-financed broadcasters, like the AusBC
ppp-dd'd = pushed-propaganda paradigm dumbed-down
PRopaganda = PR + propaganda, usual qualifier: 'lying'
SQSHsO = snivelling quisling sycophantic hangers-on
the Enlightenment well summarised by liberté, égalité, fraternité
US-MMH = Media (aka press, radio + TV), Madison Ave., Hollywood
US&/Zs = the US of A and/or Zionists; sometimes indistinguishable
XS-CO2-C*4 = excess CO2 climate-change catastrophe cliff
(suspected only one-way = spiral-down)
Zionism (latest post-Jabotinsky, '23) = perpetual aggressive war
No comments:
Post a Comment