You can read the antiwar 'headline article' here. Note that there is a 'button' to click to see comments.
Note that after Clarence jumps in, there follows quite a long exchange, including Phil Giraldi.
As I read through it, I occasionally [Me: Added my own comments].
Note carefully, the 'thumbs up/down' counts:
Comments (32)
+15
Ben_C 83p · 5 weeks ago
And to think it seems like just yesterday ~ 70% of the "American people" thought Iran already had nukes...
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/19/c...
And yet life went on...the incessant bitichng about completely unrelated trivial crap continued.. It wouldn't surprise me if most Americans didn't even think about this 'issue' at all...and of those who actually did, many probably still thought invading Iraq was a good idea and, at the same time, ridiculed North Korea's :nuclear program"...with its antiquated technology and limited delivery capabilities....as 'not serious' and/or a 'ridiculous and pathetic' attempt for attention and/or food subsidies...
So what has changed now other than Bibi's increasing shrill and frequent claims of imminent doom associated with a non-existent bomb which couldn't reach Israel in the first place, other than possibly through Syria...and even then, what is Iran going to do with it? If Syria theoretically already has stockpiles of chemical WMDs, wouldn't nukes simply be a much more expensive and gratuitous way to accomplish the same thing...and much more likely to kill Palestinians if used?
I'm guessing the use of nukes on Israel would most likely cross some sort of US and Israeli "red-line" too...and even if the entire territory commonly referred to as :"Israel" were immediately transformed into a radioactive waste land, Israel sill theoretically has nuclear armed submarines which could strike back.
All in all, this entire invented "threat" is ridiculous..and if you notice many pundits, including Bibi, will at times divert the 'issue' away form Iran potentially nuking Israel directly, and suddenly change to feigned concern about a potential attack on 'some Arab nations in the region' (wink, wink)...and 'we' all know what that means...
It's important to keep in mind the 'war' has already begun...and it's called "Syria"... The 'status quo' is completely unacceptable, as Lindsey Graham would say...
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/19/c...
And yet life went on...the incessant bitichng about completely unrelated trivial crap continued.. It wouldn't surprise me if most Americans didn't even think about this 'issue' at all...and of those who actually did, many probably still thought invading Iraq was a good idea and, at the same time, ridiculed North Korea's :nuclear program"...with its antiquated technology and limited delivery capabilities....as 'not serious' and/or a 'ridiculous and pathetic' attempt for attention and/or food subsidies...
So what has changed now other than Bibi's increasing shrill and frequent claims of imminent doom associated with a non-existent bomb which couldn't reach Israel in the first place, other than possibly through Syria...and even then, what is Iran going to do with it? If Syria theoretically already has stockpiles of chemical WMDs, wouldn't nukes simply be a much more expensive and gratuitous way to accomplish the same thing...and much more likely to kill Palestinians if used?
I'm guessing the use of nukes on Israel would most likely cross some sort of US and Israeli "red-line" too...and even if the entire territory commonly referred to as :"Israel" were immediately transformed into a radioactive waste land, Israel sill theoretically has nuclear armed submarines which could strike back.
All in all, this entire invented "threat" is ridiculous..and if you notice many pundits, including Bibi, will at times divert the 'issue' away form Iran potentially nuking Israel directly, and suddenly change to feigned concern about a potential attack on 'some Arab nations in the region' (wink, wink)...and 'we' all know what that means...
It's important to keep in mind the 'war' has already begun...and it's called "Syria"... The 'status quo' is completely unacceptable, as Lindsey Graham would say...
-31
Clarence · 5 weeks ago
PG asks: "And who has started the most wars in the Middle East?"
If PG can't even answer that one honestly and accurately, he has no business writing about the Middle East.
The monomaniacs hopelessly obsessed with the Zionist entity must be having a hard time these days convincing people that the focus must remain on Israel. Everybody else is shocked at the carnage Arabs are inflicting on each other in Egypt and Syria and beyond, but PG pretends none of that is happening. Thankfully, he's here to remind us all who the "miscreant" is.
If PG can't even answer that one honestly and accurately, he has no business writing about the Middle East.
The monomaniacs hopelessly obsessed with the Zionist entity must be having a hard time these days convincing people that the focus must remain on Israel. Everybody else is shocked at the carnage Arabs are inflicting on each other in Egypt and Syria and beyond, but PG pretends none of that is happening. Thankfully, he's here to remind us all who the "miscreant" is.
17 replies · active 3 weeks ago
+32
Phil Giraldi · 5 weeks ago
Sorry Clarence but I must have missed that part where the Arab
countries you cite have been waging war against their neighbors. I also
do not see Arab government sponsored op-eds in our leading newspapers or
commentary on news shows calling on the United States to attack a
foreign country. Israel has waged wars of aggression against all of its
neighbors, or did you not notice? And it has a monopoly on providing its
point of view in the American media, or did you miss that also? The
fact is that the United States is de facto at war with half the world
due to the Israeli connection, or is that another thing that you missed?
-27
Clarence · 5 weeks ago
Arab massacres of Zionist immigrants in the 1920s and 1930s. Israel
attacked by Arabs in 1948, 1973, provoked into war in 1967. Saddam
attacked Iran in 1980, Kuwait a decade later. Tens of thousands of Arabs
slaughtered by Hafez Assad in Syria and King Hussein in Jordan. Long,
bloody civil war in Lebanon. Current civil war in Syria, possibly
another one pending in Egypt. Plenty of aggressive actions by Arabs in
the Middle East over the years.
"Iran, which has initiated no wars with anyone since the seventeenth century"
How conveniently you overlook their role in propping up Bashar Assad in Syria and aiding the brutal slaughter of its people. How conveniently you overlook their backing of Hezbollah and Hamas and the role they've played in international terrorism. Iran has plenty of blood on its hands.
"Israel has waged wars of aggression against all of its neighbors, or did you not notice?"
Distortion and monomania. You're the one who repeatedly fails to "notice" a great many things, such as the annihilationist wars the Arabs have waged against Israel (which caused the displacement of Arabs in 1948, by the way) [Me: Outright lie; see Plan Dalet/Deir Yassin & all etc., down to the 'current moment']. You also fail to "notice" their ubiquitous and institutionalized hatred (a violent, triumphalist intolerance with roots in centuries of imperialism that long predates the settlements you cite as being the number one obstacle to peace). Surely you won't be able to "notice" the hyperbolic propaganda contained in statements like "a monopoly" on media or "at war with half the world".
You ascribe far too much power to Israel when you blame it for having a stranglehold on American media. That smacks of a familiar canard. Perhaps you're not willing to accept that many Americans simply think differently than you do. When you hear pro-Israel views expressed on Fox News, for example, remind yourself that paying subscribers across the country -- not some shadowy cabal -- are the reason they're successful. Apparently, all those American viewers are seeing and hearing something they like and coming back for more. Nobody's forcing them to prop up Fox News and its pundits. Ask Roger Ailes (whose network is owned in part by rich Saudis) if he sees himself as a subservient cog in a giant pro-Israel machine.
It doesn't speak highly of you when you paraphrase the likes of a drunken Mel Gibson who claimed that Israel is responsible for "all the wars in the world." Al-Qaida terrorists bring down the WTC, killing 3000, and it's Israel's fault the USA attacks Afghanistan? [Me: Hijacks possibly; but jet-fuel fires did not cause the Oh, so neat collapse of *3* WTC towers in the exact manner of 'controlled demolition']. Can every drone strike everywhere be traced back to Israel, too? Will you lay NOTHING at the feet of Islamic radicals? Or have you somehow failed to "notice" all their outrageous, triumphalist, intolerant, barbaric behavior? Are they not aggressors with an aggressive, expansionist ideology? It's as if you write your columns in a vacuum.
You needn't descend into wild exaggeration to make the point that America shouldn't go to war with Iran. You might have made some valid points early on, but the end of your article and your response to me show that you're not above making overwrought claims and ignoring data which conflicts with your biases.
"Iran, which has initiated no wars with anyone since the seventeenth century"
How conveniently you overlook their role in propping up Bashar Assad in Syria and aiding the brutal slaughter of its people. How conveniently you overlook their backing of Hezbollah and Hamas and the role they've played in international terrorism. Iran has plenty of blood on its hands.
"Israel has waged wars of aggression against all of its neighbors, or did you not notice?"
Distortion and monomania. You're the one who repeatedly fails to "notice" a great many things, such as the annihilationist wars the Arabs have waged against Israel (which caused the displacement of Arabs in 1948, by the way) [Me: Outright lie; see Plan Dalet/Deir Yassin & all etc., down to the 'current moment']. You also fail to "notice" their ubiquitous and institutionalized hatred (a violent, triumphalist intolerance with roots in centuries of imperialism that long predates the settlements you cite as being the number one obstacle to peace). Surely you won't be able to "notice" the hyperbolic propaganda contained in statements like "a monopoly" on media or "at war with half the world".
You ascribe far too much power to Israel when you blame it for having a stranglehold on American media. That smacks of a familiar canard. Perhaps you're not willing to accept that many Americans simply think differently than you do. When you hear pro-Israel views expressed on Fox News, for example, remind yourself that paying subscribers across the country -- not some shadowy cabal -- are the reason they're successful. Apparently, all those American viewers are seeing and hearing something they like and coming back for more. Nobody's forcing them to prop up Fox News and its pundits. Ask Roger Ailes (whose network is owned in part by rich Saudis) if he sees himself as a subservient cog in a giant pro-Israel machine.
It doesn't speak highly of you when you paraphrase the likes of a drunken Mel Gibson who claimed that Israel is responsible for "all the wars in the world." Al-Qaida terrorists bring down the WTC, killing 3000, and it's Israel's fault the USA attacks Afghanistan? [Me: Hijacks possibly; but jet-fuel fires did not cause the Oh, so neat collapse of *3* WTC towers in the exact manner of 'controlled demolition']. Can every drone strike everywhere be traced back to Israel, too? Will you lay NOTHING at the feet of Islamic radicals? Or have you somehow failed to "notice" all their outrageous, triumphalist, intolerant, barbaric behavior? Are they not aggressors with an aggressive, expansionist ideology? It's as if you write your columns in a vacuum.
You needn't descend into wild exaggeration to make the point that America shouldn't go to war with Iran. You might have made some valid points early on, but the end of your article and your response to me show that you're not above making overwrought claims and ignoring data which conflicts with your biases.
+7
rwe2late · 5 weeks ago
Clarence,
You wrote about bias and hyperbole. But is it not hyperbole to claim as you did Israel was "provoked" into several past wars as though Israel had done no "provoking" on its part?
Currently, the situation is that Israel is fully armed with conventional and nuclear weapons and "backed" by the US. Israel is an expansive apartheid state, and maintains guard over a Palestine ghetto, deprived and blockaded.
I agree that claims that Israel controls US policy are ridiculous [Me: Yet 'it is claimed' that the US-Congress is "Israeli occupied territory"]. However, that is difficult for some to see since Israeli leaders have wedded themselves to US policy so closely as though their own (as have leaders in Britain, Saudi Arabia, Kosovo, Georgia, etc.).
As for "Arab" terrorism and bloodshed, it is also worthwhile to consider the divide and conquer role played by the US and its dependent allies including Israel. ALL the history going back to at least WWI is relevant. There was the Shah coup in Iran, the support of Saddam, the promotion of Al Qaeda, the sponsorship of Saudi extremists, the attacks and invasions of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Egypt, Iraq. There was and is financial and military support given despotic leaders throughout the Middle East. There are the occupations and military bases.
By wedding themselves to the global policies of such a global cabal of militarists, spymasters, and profiteers, Israeli leaders have opened themselves to the charge of bearing more or less responsibility for much of the world's malaise [Me: Since the Zs were active since latest 1896, had decided on Palestine latest 1905, the Zs' coveting pre-dated the UK lust for oil, coincident with pre-WW1 conversion of British warships from coal to oil].
You wrote about bias and hyperbole. But is it not hyperbole to claim as you did Israel was "provoked" into several past wars as though Israel had done no "provoking" on its part?
Currently, the situation is that Israel is fully armed with conventional and nuclear weapons and "backed" by the US. Israel is an expansive apartheid state, and maintains guard over a Palestine ghetto, deprived and blockaded.
I agree that claims that Israel controls US policy are ridiculous [Me: Yet 'it is claimed' that the US-Congress is "Israeli occupied territory"]. However, that is difficult for some to see since Israeli leaders have wedded themselves to US policy so closely as though their own (as have leaders in Britain, Saudi Arabia, Kosovo, Georgia, etc.).
As for "Arab" terrorism and bloodshed, it is also worthwhile to consider the divide and conquer role played by the US and its dependent allies including Israel. ALL the history going back to at least WWI is relevant. There was the Shah coup in Iran, the support of Saddam, the promotion of Al Qaeda, the sponsorship of Saudi extremists, the attacks and invasions of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Egypt, Iraq. There was and is financial and military support given despotic leaders throughout the Middle East. There are the occupations and military bases.
By wedding themselves to the global policies of such a global cabal of militarists, spymasters, and profiteers, Israeli leaders have opened themselves to the charge of bearing more or less responsibility for much of the world's malaise [Me: Since the Zs were active since latest 1896, had decided on Palestine latest 1905, the Zs' coveting pre-dated the UK lust for oil, coincident with pre-WW1 conversion of British warships from coal to oil].
-3
Clarence · 5 weeks ago
"is it not hyperbole to claim as you did Israel was "provoked" into
several past wars" -- Israel was provoked into taking pre-emptive action
in 1967. It wasn't provoked in 1948 and 1973; it was outright attacked
by aggressors [Me: The aggressors were and still are the alien invader Zionists].
"an expansive apartheid state" -- Once again, tiny Israel is accused of being expansionist. Islam "expanded" out of the Arabian peninsula to the point that it now stretches from Morocco to Indonesia and beyond (always peacefully, of course), but in some unbalanced minds it's Israel that is "expansionist". As for "apartheid", I wonder if you're aware that the ethnic group that comprises the majority of Israel was expelled from Arab lands in 1948 and would suffer a fate far worse than apartheid if any of its members tried to return [Me: Apart from the few 'native' Jews (not particularly unwelcome), it's the invading Zionists causing the major problem, with their murdering to steal land/property]. Arabs enjoy more rights in Israel than than they do in any Arab nation, whereas a certain tribe isn't allowed to set foot in Saudi Arabia or exist at all in any future Palestinian state. You and others have accepted that this particular ethnic hatred is perfectly OK. Extreme, murderous intolerance by Arabs gets ignored, while Israel stands accused of apartheid [Me: After improper alienation of land/property, all discussion of how the Zs may treat natives is trivial to senseless].
"responsibility for much of the world's malaise" -- So terrorist enclaves should have been allowed to grow and operate unimpeded in some of the countries on your list? [Me: 99% of terrorism is an asymmetric response to extreme oppression - what else? Terrorists may be regarded as freedom-defenders without the 'benefits' of the US/Z arsenal - itself used only aggressively, 99% *against* freedom.]
"an expansive apartheid state" -- Once again, tiny Israel is accused of being expansionist. Islam "expanded" out of the Arabian peninsula to the point that it now stretches from Morocco to Indonesia and beyond (always peacefully, of course), but in some unbalanced minds it's Israel that is "expansionist". As for "apartheid", I wonder if you're aware that the ethnic group that comprises the majority of Israel was expelled from Arab lands in 1948 and would suffer a fate far worse than apartheid if any of its members tried to return [Me: Apart from the few 'native' Jews (not particularly unwelcome), it's the invading Zionists causing the major problem, with their murdering to steal land/property]. Arabs enjoy more rights in Israel than than they do in any Arab nation, whereas a certain tribe isn't allowed to set foot in Saudi Arabia or exist at all in any future Palestinian state. You and others have accepted that this particular ethnic hatred is perfectly OK. Extreme, murderous intolerance by Arabs gets ignored, while Israel stands accused of apartheid [Me: After improper alienation of land/property, all discussion of how the Zs may treat natives is trivial to senseless].
"responsibility for much of the world's malaise" -- So terrorist enclaves should have been allowed to grow and operate unimpeded in some of the countries on your list? [Me: 99% of terrorism is an asymmetric response to extreme oppression - what else? Terrorists may be regarded as freedom-defenders without the 'benefits' of the US/Z arsenal - itself used only aggressively, 99% *against* freedom.]
+2
rwe2late · 4 weeks ago
Israel IS an apartheid state regardless how you think of other nations might compare.
Israel IS an expansionist state.
You completely ignored the main point of my comment, namely that Israeli leaders now adhere to a cabal of global militarists and swindlers. The only debate is about their degree of influence within that cabal.
Israel IS an expansionist state.
You completely ignored the main point of my comment, namely that Israeli leaders now adhere to a cabal of global militarists and swindlers. The only debate is about their degree of influence within that cabal.
+1
1/4horse 6p · 4 weeks ago
"I agree that claims that Israel controls US policy are ridiculous"
__had a response2this, since yesterday ======$#$%&%$#$==yet have not//////*\\\jus can not make it thru the checkpoint . . . [Me: here, I assume "checkpoint" = antiwar censor-bot/censor-person = un- & anti- free speech]
__had a response2this, since yesterday ======$#$%&%$#$==yet have not//////*\\\jus can not make it thru the checkpoint . . . [Me: here, I assume "checkpoint" = antiwar censor-bot/censor-person = un- & anti- free speech]
+1
richard vajs · 4 weeks ago
Actually, it is those Americans who care more about Israel than they
care about their own country (America) that are screwing up our
(foreign) policy. As a friend of mine used to put it, "we can deal with
the Indians circling the wagon train, all-right, but it those Indians
inside the wagon train that are going to get us!"
+1
1/4horse 6p · 4 weeks ago
. . . still can not get original message thru checkpoint . . .
//////*\\\which's, BLOCKED: answering sorta its own both sordid points
that now, again, finally, even online! 1Lie p r e e m p t s itself and
thus everything else that can///&\\can not get said . . . and which,
inside/outside, here again interfears with what you even fail to
mention . . . its absence
nevertheless, outside/in, don't see How! ... you can again fail with the likes of just such an inept address ... 'we can deal with the palestinians circling the wagon train, all-right, but' . . .
nevertheless, outside/in, don't see How! ... you can again fail with the likes of just such an inept address ... 'we can deal with the palestinians circling the wagon train, all-right, but' . . .
+1
richard vajs · 4 weeks ago
1/4 horse ,
My "inept address" actually was aimed to be a parable - a story not meant to be factual. I was trying to make the point that honorable people should be loyal to their own country or in the case that they prefer another country to the extent that they are willing to be treacherous to their own, should leave or "make aliyah" and regain their honor. I know that I aimed low with that "Indians and wagon train" tale; but, obviously not low enough.
My "inept address" actually was aimed to be a parable - a story not meant to be factual. I was trying to make the point that honorable people should be loyal to their own country or in the case that they prefer another country to the extent that they are willing to be treacherous to their own, should leave or "make aliyah" and regain their honor. I know that I aimed low with that "Indians and wagon train" tale; but, obviously not low enough.
+1
1/4horse 6p · 4 weeks ago
"rwe2late" . . .
. . . waiting . . .
and waiting . . .
waiting4what . . . waiting@the checkpoint
. . .
. . . waiting . . .
and waiting . . .
waiting4what . . . waiting@the checkpoint
. . .
+11
richard vajs · 5 weeks ago
Clarence,
I am not trying to respond to you in place of Mr. Giraldi (that is his privilege), but your line of bull is just too much to ignore. And, I would welcome your hatred on a personal level.
You needn't dump out everything in the book for novice practitioners of hasbra, that you were issued, all at one time. Spend a little at a time, won't you? You are all over the map. Don't worry about ancient injustices against the Israelis - that is ancient, who knows the truth? Maybe they did to the Arabs first?
We need to talk about the gross injustices, Israel is pulling on the Palestinians NOW - anyone with eyes can see that nastiness. Let's also talk about who keeps invading Lebanon - Iran or Israel? And believe me, for every Mel Gibson, there are are a dozen Avigdor Liebermans.
Finally, if America goes to war with Iran (as you seem to wish for), the body bag won't need to be any "wild exaggeration".
I am not trying to respond to you in place of Mr. Giraldi (that is his privilege), but your line of bull is just too much to ignore. And, I would welcome your hatred on a personal level.
You needn't dump out everything in the book for novice practitioners of hasbra, that you were issued, all at one time. Spend a little at a time, won't you? You are all over the map. Don't worry about ancient injustices against the Israelis - that is ancient, who knows the truth? Maybe they did to the Arabs first?
We need to talk about the gross injustices, Israel is pulling on the Palestinians NOW - anyone with eyes can see that nastiness. Let's also talk about who keeps invading Lebanon - Iran or Israel? And believe me, for every Mel Gibson, there are are a dozen Avigdor Liebermans.
Finally, if America goes to war with Iran (as you seem to wish for), the body bag won't need to be any "wild exaggeration".
+18
Phil Giraldi · 5 weeks ago
Clarence – A 1500 word article does not pretend to be a comprehensive
history of the Middle East. And I have never said that there hasn’t been
plenty of violence in the Arab world, just that the aggressors in the
region since 1948 [Me: Looong before; see Herzl, Balfour, Jabotinsky, Ben-Gurion, Meir ... = means, motive, and opportunity etc.] have been for the most part Israel and the U.S. And if
you have read any of my stuff you would know I have little sympathy for
Islamists or political Islam. I don’t like anyone with a holy book in
hand telling the rest of us how to live.
Your indictment of Iran for inciting violence is odd as Iran has been getting regularly threatened by both the U.S. and Israel since the 1990s [Me: Started with Britain's oil-lust, pre-WW1; then continued with UK/CIA coup against Mossadegh, 1953, etc.; Iran made itself free in 1979] and its ties to Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah are as nothing compared to what Tel Aviv and Washington have been up to. The rest of your argument consists of throwaway lines and the usual smearing. How can you seriously describe the all too evident Zionist control of what the media says about the Middle East as the public’s “seeing and hearing something they like and coming back for more.” And calling it a “familiar canard”, presumably means to imply that I am an anti-Semite, right? “Institutionalized hatred” seems to fit Arabs in your mind but not the Israelis. And yes, 9/11 was certainly in large part about Israel as is international terrorism in general, but maybe those constitute another thing you didn’t notice or don’t really care about. And what exactly does Mel Gibson have to do with this discussion, but I guess you hate him too.
Your indictment of Iran for inciting violence is odd as Iran has been getting regularly threatened by both the U.S. and Israel since the 1990s [Me: Started with Britain's oil-lust, pre-WW1; then continued with UK/CIA coup against Mossadegh, 1953, etc.; Iran made itself free in 1979] and its ties to Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah are as nothing compared to what Tel Aviv and Washington have been up to. The rest of your argument consists of throwaway lines and the usual smearing. How can you seriously describe the all too evident Zionist control of what the media says about the Middle East as the public’s “seeing and hearing something they like and coming back for more.” And calling it a “familiar canard”, presumably means to imply that I am an anti-Semite, right? “Institutionalized hatred” seems to fit Arabs in your mind but not the Israelis. And yes, 9/11 was certainly in large part about Israel as is international terrorism in general, but maybe those constitute another thing you didn’t notice or don’t really care about. And what exactly does Mel Gibson have to do with this discussion, but I guess you hate him too.
-6
Clarence · 5 weeks ago
"the aggressors in the region since 1948 have been for the most part
Israel and the U.S." -- Arab armies attacked newborn Israel in 1948 (an
act of aggression). Arabs again attacked in 1973 (an act of aggression).
Saddam attacked Iran and later Kuwait (acts of aggression). Al-Qaida
killed 3000 people in NYC (an act of aggression). You minimize Arab
aggression and maximize that of the USA and Israel, even after
repeatedly being provided with dates and examples.
"I have little sympathy for Islamists or political Islam" -- Nice to know, but that sentiment is muted in your articles compared to your insistence that Israel is to blame for everything. You don't present the everpresent backdrop to Israeli actions and policies, which is the ubiquitous, longstanding, exterminatory hatred and violence that have been directed against Israel since before 1948 -- before statehood, before settlements, before any "acts of aggression".
"the usual smearing" -- Can you back up the statement about Israel causing the USA to be "at war with half the world", or is that not a kind of smear itself? The point about Mel Gibson was simply that your words echoed his. He engaged in a similar-sounding hyperbole when he claimed that a certain ethnic group was responsible for "all the wars in the world". I mentioned Mel Gibson not because I hate him (considering your passionate obsession, you're certainly not one to call out anyone on hate), but because your words reminded me of the same ones he uttered in a rant that caused him public embarrassment.
You might not realize it, but you're not just smearing what you call the "Zionist-controlled media", you're also smearing the millions of people who consume it. The people I described as "coming back for more" are your fellow citizens, many of whom are bright, educated, and who presumably have access to alternative media including the internet and websites like this one. When you rail against the poison these hapless victims are being subjected to, you're implying that you stand above them with special knowledge of a secret cabal that tinkers with the news. What I'm saying is that many of those millions are equally well-informed yet they STILL opt to follow Fox News or talk radio [Me: There's an important point here; I'll continue it after the end of all the antiwar comments; keywords MSM/PFBCs.] or wherever else they might encounter pro-Israel voices they agree with. Your focus is entirely on the media, and not one iota on the millions of people who choose to consume it. Much like your focus is almost entirely on Israel, and barely an iota on Israel's enemies.
"9/11 was certainly in large part about Israel as is international terrorism in general" -- Ah yes. Rather than blame the barbarians who commit heinous acts, you echo and endorse their grievances. You blame Israel for the slaughter rather than the actual murderers who carried out the slaughter. Would you let any terrorist off the hook as long as his purported bete noire was the same place you hate too?
"I have little sympathy for Islamists or political Islam" -- Nice to know, but that sentiment is muted in your articles compared to your insistence that Israel is to blame for everything. You don't present the everpresent backdrop to Israeli actions and policies, which is the ubiquitous, longstanding, exterminatory hatred and violence that have been directed against Israel since before 1948 -- before statehood, before settlements, before any "acts of aggression".
"the usual smearing" -- Can you back up the statement about Israel causing the USA to be "at war with half the world", or is that not a kind of smear itself? The point about Mel Gibson was simply that your words echoed his. He engaged in a similar-sounding hyperbole when he claimed that a certain ethnic group was responsible for "all the wars in the world". I mentioned Mel Gibson not because I hate him (considering your passionate obsession, you're certainly not one to call out anyone on hate), but because your words reminded me of the same ones he uttered in a rant that caused him public embarrassment.
You might not realize it, but you're not just smearing what you call the "Zionist-controlled media", you're also smearing the millions of people who consume it. The people I described as "coming back for more" are your fellow citizens, many of whom are bright, educated, and who presumably have access to alternative media including the internet and websites like this one. When you rail against the poison these hapless victims are being subjected to, you're implying that you stand above them with special knowledge of a secret cabal that tinkers with the news. What I'm saying is that many of those millions are equally well-informed yet they STILL opt to follow Fox News or talk radio [Me: There's an important point here; I'll continue it after the end of all the antiwar comments; keywords MSM/PFBCs.] or wherever else they might encounter pro-Israel voices they agree with. Your focus is entirely on the media, and not one iota on the millions of people who choose to consume it. Much like your focus is almost entirely on Israel, and barely an iota on Israel's enemies.
"9/11 was certainly in large part about Israel as is international terrorism in general" -- Ah yes. Rather than blame the barbarians who commit heinous acts, you echo and endorse their grievances. You blame Israel for the slaughter rather than the actual murderers who carried out the slaughter. Would you let any terrorist off the hook as long as his purported bete noire was the same place you hate too?
0
James · 3 weeks ago
Exactly Clarence. People should stop beating around the bush and
acknowledge that 9-11 had Israeli fingerprints all over it. From Israeli
operatives ' documenting the event ' to the obvious cover up by liberal
zionist dominated media. You have all been discussing the consequences
of this event for the last 10 years but of course, it was all just a
massive coincidence. lol This has been a great education in mass
manipulation.
+9
ML3 94p · 5 weeks ago
Holy troll for Israel, Batman! How much do they pay this sock puppet for his hasbara services?
You will never hear a bad word about Israel on FOX News, aka Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch's Israeli worshipping whorehouse. Not one SINGLE instance of criticism AT ALL. And who else is above abuse and reproach at Fox News? Anyone? Any other nation, even America? The answer is NO!!! Only Israel!
Ditto for all the Rightwing hate radio hosts who litter the airwaves like so much useless offal. It's like they hatch these retards out of the same egg - all given their marching orders and talking points, opinions spewed matching up with a startling glare of conformity.
You will never hear a bad word about Israel on FOX News, aka Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch's Israeli worshipping whorehouse. Not one SINGLE instance of criticism AT ALL. And who else is above abuse and reproach at Fox News? Anyone? Any other nation, even America? The answer is NO!!! Only Israel!
Ditto for all the Rightwing hate radio hosts who litter the airwaves like so much useless offal. It's like they hatch these retards out of the same egg - all given their marching orders and talking points, opinions spewed matching up with a startling glare of conformity.
0
james · 4 weeks ago
You are either a troll or an experiment on the total effect of idiocy in politics.[Me: The indenting - not reproduced here - shows this to be a response to the 1st Clarence comment.]
-1
Clarence · 4 weeks ago
And you obviously have nothing, absolutely nothing, to add to any debate besides witless personal attacks. Congratulations. [Me. Note Clarence's allegation, "witless personal attacks" - then see Clarence's exchange with aletheia after attacking JJJihad.[ibid.]]
+18
JoaoAlfaiate · 5 weeks ago
I wonder if there will ever be a time when Uncle Sam is not led around
by the nose by these undesirable people. Their power over us waxes and
waxes. Will it ever wane?
+12
richard vajs · 5 weeks ago
All of this bloodshed in Egypt right now owes its origin to the issue
of whether the Egyptian military maintains a blockade of the Sinai-Gaza
border or not. This is important to Israel because they want no relief
for trapped people in Gaza. Israel (along with their US stooges) want no
access for Gaza to Egypt, because Israel wants Gaza to slowly starve
without interference from the Muslim World. So that is the deal -
American aid for Egypt will continue as long as there is some
militarized faction in Egypt willing to be bribed into serving as
Israel's cats-paw in sealing off this border. Obviously, the Muslim
Brotherhood wasn't bribable enough. [Me. IMHO, correct]
+14
Agvo · 5 weeks ago
Speaking of wolves and the man who cried wolf once too often, when will
the gullible West stop believing the Nut-n-yahoo and waste their
resources to mullify this habitual liar who should be completely
ignored.
[Me: 'The West,' usually US, F+UK/NATO & D (but only when the latter can fool their electorate), strangely enough, *all* support the *supreme international criminal* Zs - but I cannot see why.]
[Me: 'The West,' usually US, F+UK/NATO & D (but only when the latter can fool their electorate), strangely enough, *all* support the *supreme international criminal* Zs - but I cannot see why.]
+7
ATM · 5 weeks ago
The Israeli have been saying that the Iranians are a year from a bomb
for 35 or more years. If that is even slightly true then the Iranian
government has put no effort what so ever into the project.
[Me: The Zs have been at war with the entire ME (if not the world) latest since the Muslim/Arabs (M/As) refused to let the Zs buy into Palestine, following Herzl, Balfour & Jabotinsky, etc..]
[Me: The Zs have been at war with the entire ME (if not the world) latest since the Muslim/Arabs (M/As) refused to let the Zs buy into Palestine, following Herzl, Balfour & Jabotinsky, etc..]
+8
ML3 94p · 5 weeks ago
"Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been going around the
world as well as regularly appearing on American television telling
everyone who might be inclined to listen"
And if the places where he goes tell him to piss off , they are tired of hearing him run his mouth (make fun of him and treat him with ZERO respect - why not, Samson Option? pleeeeease) are they antisemites, or do are they just rightfully sick of this smug bloviating toilet licker? I don't see how disagreeing with Israel's policies could be antisemitic - let's see these racists have a NON-JEWISH PM and see what happens?
And if the places where he goes tell him to piss off , they are tired of hearing him run his mouth (make fun of him and treat him with ZERO respect - why not, Samson Option? pleeeeease) are they antisemites, or do are they just rightfully sick of this smug bloviating toilet licker? I don't see how disagreeing with Israel's policies could be antisemitic - let's see these racists have a NON-JEWISH PM and see what happens?
1 reply · active 4 weeks ago
+5
ATM · 5 weeks ago
The Likud party is so bigoted that they think that no one else in the world is a Jew;)
+7
rosemerry · 5 weeks ago
Why is the NYT called the paper of record? Record for Zionist
propaganda? Record for bias? Record for correspondents chosen for their
sympathies towards Israel? Record for employing "experts" like Thomas
Friedman for objective reports?
+6
theo baumann · 5 weeks ago
Yes, Israel does want peace....a piece of land!
+1
1/4horse 6p · 5 weeks ago
Lying and Crime . . . accuse the other, innocent, as the fallguise for what you yourself have done, did, and do:
for Who knows better than U the in deed highly disturbed details of how it's pulledoff . . .
{the criminal mind: evil?genius! does in ffact habitually ffind itself, p r e e m p t i v e l y, far past such naive others around them = the socio.psycho.path2untold riches and, sobs, power
for Who knows better than U the in deed highly disturbed details of how it's pulledoff . . .
{the criminal mind: evil?genius! does in ffact habitually ffind itself, p r e e m p t i v e l y, far past such naive others around them = the socio.psycho.path2untold riches and, sobs, power
+2
cmichaelg 81p · 4 weeks ago
I just love it when Philip Giraldi knocks one out of the ballpark!
0
Dan · 4 weeks ago
"One has to wonder why The New York Times believes that being "balanced" somehow requires it to replay Israeli propaganda."
Yes, we could call this the "Wonder Imperative" --related to the hypocrisy charge which we seem t think makes some sense. Better keep on wondering than reach a conclusion I guess.
Yes, we could call this the "Wonder Imperative" --related to the hypocrisy charge which we seem t think makes some sense. Better keep on wondering than reach a conclusion I guess.
No comments:
Post a Comment