Mike Renzulli

Watch "The Third Jihad" for Free!

Recommended Posts

Thank goodness the Manhattan Project movie was scrapped. It later surfaced that Robert Oppenheimer, administrative head of the project, was a fellow traveler, indeed a complete flake. Imagine Ayn Rand making a hero out of a communist.

Without that complete flake the bomb would not have been made. Only Oppenheimer had both the clout and the ability to orchestrate the efforts of several scientific prima donnas. What he did at Los Alamos can be likened to herding squirrels. General Groves who did not suffer nonsense gladly realized this and reconciled himself to working with Oppenheimer.

Oppenheimer was a political imbecile. A real Communist would have reckoned him as a "useful idiot". General Graves reckoned him as an indispensable and useful idiot.

It is simply the case that to perform the task one must use the tools that are at hand, and Oppenheimer was such a tool.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert Kolker wrote:

"Without that complete flake [Robert Oppenheimer] the bomb would not have been made."

There’s no way Kolker could know this even as a probability. In any case, Americans in 1945 (including servicemen, especially the POWs in Japan) and Americans now would be better off had the atom bomb not been made for use [see below] used on Japan.

Kolker is an ignoramus with a little knowledge, a dangerous thing. Japan was suing for peace before the atom bomb. They did have one condition, that the emperor be spared. Then after Hiroshima/Nagasaki Truman spared him anyway.

Kolker – who even today breathes a sigh of relieve that he wasn’t made into innumerable little bars of soap (one gigantic bar, whatever) – might trouble himself to read a few good books and articles, referenced under the handy "Past Wars: WW II" link in a post above.

Edited by Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert Kolker wrote:

"Without that complete flake [Robert Oppenheimer] the bomb would not have been made."

There’s no way Kolker could know this even as a probability. In any case, Americans in 1945 (including servicemen, especially the POWs in Japan) and Americans now would be better off had the atom bomb not been made for use on Japan.

Kolker is an ignoramus with a little knowledge, a dangerous thing. Japan was suing for peace before the atom bomb. They did have one condition, that the emperor be spared. Then after Hiroshima/Nagasaki Truman spared him anyway.

Kolker – who even today breathes a sigh of relieve that he wasn’t made into innumerable little bars of soap (one gigantic bar, whatever) – might trouble himself to read a few good books and articles, referenced under the handy "Past Wars: WW II" link in a post above.

The reason why the Bomb project was undertaken was because it was feared Germany might get the A-bomb. Japan had nothing to do with the Manhattan Project. Germany folded a few months before the Bomb was tested. It worked, so it was decided to use it on Japan to get them to surrender. Okinowa was such a blood bath that everyone in the military except MacArthur was beginning to have second and third thoughts about an invasion of Japan.

By the way, I have forgotten more history than you ever knew in the first place.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d originally written "... better off had the atom bomb not been made." Period. Then, realizing that the U.S. did need to make the bomb eventually, lazily tacked on the edit "for use on Japan" because that’s what we’re talking about.

Yes, the bomb was made with Germany in mind. (Every physicist knew that a fusion bomb was possible.) Change my sentence to:

"... Americans now would be better off had the atom bomb not been used on Japan."

Kolker wrote that Truman decided:

"... to use it [the atom bomb] on Japan to get them to surrender."

Nope. Japan, as pointed out above, wanted to call it quits on a minor condition, one that Truman eventually met anyway. Truman used the atom bomb to impress the Soviets, not to get Japan to surrender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d originally written "... better off had the atom bomb not been made." Period. Then, realizing that the U.S. did need to make the bomb eventually, lazily tacked on the edit "for use on Japan" because that’s what we’re talking about.

Yes, the bomb was made with Germany in mind. (Every physicist knew that a fusion bomb was possible.) Change my sentence to:

"... Americans now would be better off had the atom bomb not been used on Japan."

Kolker wrote that Truman decided:

"... to use it [the atom bomb] on Japan to get them to surrender."

Nope. Japan, as pointed out above, wanted to call it quits on a minor condition, one that Truman eventually met anyway. Truman used the atom bomb to impress the Soviets, not to get Japan to surrender.

At the time Truman and his friends were calling for unconditional surrender. Later on this was modified, so that Japan could keeps its Mikado on some conditions which included

1. Occupation of Japan by American troops.

2. The Mikado would take orders from an American governor

3. The Mikado would renounce any claims to divinity .

4. Japan was to have a parliament and democratic elections.

While Tojo and his gang were in power there was no way Japan would accept occupation and control over the Mikado.

You sound like a young person so you have no conception of how much Americans hated the Japanese. It was visceral gut hatred and the Americans would have loved to wipe out Japan to the last man, women and child. This feeling was magnified by the vicious treatment the Japanese gave to civilians in areas they controlled and the atrocities committed on prisoners of war. Americans hate it when their boys have their heads cut off.

The Pacific war was peculiar in that the opponents were extremely racist and the Japanese were doubly hated. They were not white (and hence were not like us) and they attacked the U.S. without warning although negotiations were going on. You had to be alive and there at the time (as I was) to feel the heat and fire of that hatred. Non-Jewish Americans did not hate the Germans but a small fraction compared to the hatred felt toward the Japanese. Jewish Americans had the combination of dislike for the Japanese and utter and complete loathing of the Germans, particularly after some details of the "final solution" became known.

During the war it was generally felt that the Japanese were not quite human. Their atrocious behavior only magnified that demonization. It got to the point where Truman authorized the use of poison gas and bacteriological substances against the Japanese, although they were not used. If the U.S. had to invade they would have been used.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These discussions end up a thief of time.

Kolker doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and I’m not here to give history lessons. His jaundiced account can stand here and the sanity left to John T. Flynn and Harry Elmer Barnes.

The Clarion Fund interests me because of the Ayn Rand Institute connection. ARI recently (September 8, 2011) sponsored an event in Washington D.C. featuring neocons from half a dozen neocon organs, one of which was the Clarion Fund.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have some criticisms, but the film is excellent overall.

Ghs

P.S. I have an idea: The makers of the film should have a contest for the most hopped-up critical review. The winner gets a two-week vacation in Islamberg in upstate New York, all expenses paid. 8-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just entered the email address "nospam@nospam.com" and was able to watch the movie without having to give my actual one.

Thanks for the tip about nospam@nospam.com; it worked great, and I will have occasion to use it again. I assume this is a valid email address. I wonder if it uses a spam filter. 8-)

Ghs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize (and I am sure Ms. Rand did as well) that the U.S. or any free country could not take all of them out at one time or in all cases. Therefore, it makes sense for the U.S. and it's allies to take out dictatorships that pose the most direct threat. In the case of terrorism, it clearly is Iran and Saudi Arabia. Both countries not only export their orthodox brand of Islam in the sects they are geared towards (Sunni and Shia) but also fund groups that radicalize Muslims who, in turn, arm and train terrorists. Iran gives direct support to groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hizbullah I believe in addition to supporting the Muslim Brotherhood.

As both The Third Jihad and Iranium outline, the Islamists believe it is their duty as commanded by Allah to convert the world to Islam and conduct acts of violence or stealth jihad in order to accomplish this aim. The U.S. is not conducting perpetual war for perpetual peace but is defending itself and its allies against an enemy hostile to our way of life. George W. Bush was right that the Islamists do hate us for our freedoms. This being case we cannot afford to be weak and need to take the gloves off when it comes to dealing with this threat.

Yes, a dictator has given up his right to self-defense. But if he isn’t threatening the U.S. the U.S. government has no moral right to tax and kill and maim Americans, not to mention kill and maim the dictator’s victims, in pursuit of his execution.

1940s Germany and 2003 Iraq have little in common, official Objectivist baloney notwithstanding. America – as opposed to the U.S. government – lost that war, by the way.

Edited by Mike Renzulli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Renzulli wrote:

"Iran gives direct support to groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hizbullah I believe in addition to supporting the Muslim Brotherhood."

That may worry the Israelis but it doesn’t worry us.

In fact America would be better off if Israel disappeared.

Though the West shouldn’t have given Iran its nuclear technology, I’m no more worried about it than China and the others.

Except Israel. Israel might be capable of setting off one of its nuclear bombs in the U.S. and blaming it on its enemies, because some Israelis might think they can do it with impunity. Look at all the other things they got away with:

This Is Our Ally?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Renzulli wrote:

"Iran gives direct support to groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hizbullah I believe in addition to supporting the Muslim Brotherhood."

That may worry the Israelis but it doesn’t worry us.

In fact America would be better off if Israel disappeared.

Though the West shouldn’t have given Iran its nuclear technology, I’m no more worried about it than China and the others.

Except Israel. Israel might be capable of setting off one of its nuclear bombs in the U.S. and blaming it on its enemies, because some Israelis might think they can do it with impunity. Look at all the other things they got away with:

This Is Our Ally?

Not sanctioned.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Renzulli wrote:

"Iran gives direct support to groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hizbullah I believe in addition to supporting the Muslim Brotherhood."

That may worry the Israelis but it doesn’t worry us.

In fact America would be better off if Israel disappeared.

Though the West shouldn’t have given Iran its nuclear technology, I’m no more worried about it than China and the others.

Except Israel. Israel might be capable of setting off one of its nuclear bombs in the U.S. and blaming it on its enemies, because some Israelis might think they can do it with impunity. Look at all the other things they got away with:

This Is Our Ally?

This is the most evil post I've read on OL. Who are you referring to with your "us". Never mind, rot in your self made hell Mark Hunter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL and then some.

By us I meant America Firsters.

With some Objectivists it’s Israel one, two, and three, and America somewhere down the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch the film Iranium and you will see how it does. It isn't just the three groups I mentioned that Iran supports but other terrorist efforts as well. Including the radicalization of Muslims via their funding of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.

Also, if you want to know one of the main reasons for the anti-Semitism/radicalization of Muslims, have a look at this:

Renzulli wrote:

"Iran gives direct support to groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hizbullah I believe in addition to supporting the Muslim Brotherhood."

That may worry the Israelis but it doesn’t worry us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Renzulli wrote: "Iran gives direct support to groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hizbullah I believe in addition to supporting the Muslim Brotherhood." That may worry the Israelis but it doesn’t worry us. In fact America would be better off if Israel disappeared. Though the West shouldn’t have given Iran its nuclear technology, I’m no more worried about it than China and the others. Except Israel. Israel might be capable of setting off one of its nuclear bombs in the U.S. and blaming it on its enemies, because some Israelis might think they can do it with impunity. Look at all the other things they got away with: This Is Our Ally?

Ha!

Does anyone doubt that Israel would sell its grandma in order to survive?

But a mainland US nuke?

You are not a well man.

I don't think you understand 'vulnerability' - a nation that has no oceans and huge land mass to absorb attacks by sworn enemies, but borders on 3 or 4 possible frontlines, cannot always play by the rules to survive.

I am amazed how much they have tried. At least now, after losing the propaganda war for 30 years, Israel is getting down from its high horse and placing its own videos before the world.

What is critical is this: the USA needs Israel, no less than the reverse. This doesn't have to include any special treatment - in fact I think the best it can do is stay out of the way while lending moral support, and Israel will fight its own battles.

So where does this "one-sided dependency" that's become so fashionable to spout off, come from?

It is past time I think for the whole question to be redressed: only objective principles are relevant any more.

The whole commonality thing between the two nations evolved as we know from staunch US Christian support - based obviously on all that garbage about the Second Coming. Thus, "Zionist Christians", and other Conservative groups.

I sensed this was wrong from the beginning - but Israel took what it could, and it's hard to blame her. That alliance with the neocons is coming under pressure now, it seems, and there is nothing rational to replace it.

Despite these shaky premises, the two countries have essentially been more than allies. They have been friends, who kept an eye on each others' interests.

Friendship - including integrity and respect, long-term common purpose, shared values... and shared enemies.

It is only the liberal-progressive who can condemn the best of people and countries with such lies; the lies of sanctimonious self-blame, and craven appeasement of the genuine Jihadis and terror gangs. It's he, the uber-altruist, who would chuck a friend to the enemy to placate it - for a single day.

I say this:

Know your enemy - and he is not the whole Muslim world - and deal with him.

Know your friends, objectively, and stand fast.

Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Israel is not America’s friend.

It may be a friend of the U.S. government, but it’s no friend of Americans – elaborated in "This Is Our Ally."

Regarding Mike Renzulli’s post ...

We were talking about the Clarion Fund's Zionist propaganda directed at Americans, paid for by Aish HaTorah. Why bring up the historical Nazi-Arab connection here?

It makes as much sense as bringing up the historical Nazi-Zionist connection.

The phony Muslim Brotherhood illustrates the duplicity of Israelis, which has some relevance here.

One good way to defend the U.S. from the authentic Muslim Brotherhood is simply end, permanently, all Third World immigration, and vet immigrants from Europe.

Edited by Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, you are entitled to your opinion about Israel but you are dead wrong about the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood's founder was a man named Hassan al-Banna who was a Nazi sympathizer and was active in one of the Middle Eastern Nazi regiments during World War II. Google "Banna Nazi" and you will see the relevant evidence. Also, look at pictures of Hamas (supported by the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran) rallies in which you will see numerous photos of people saluting with their arms extended out in the Nazi salute. What we are up against is an extension of what came out of Nazi Germany except what makes the Islamists more dangerous than Nazis is that their commandments are coming from Allah as revealed to them by like-minded Imams rather than the Fuhrer.

In terms of your making an issue about the Lavon Affair, keep in mind what the context of the operation was the result of. I think Guiron did what he did because of numerous terrorist attacks from Gaza against Israel that was under Egyptian control and obviously was sanctioned by Nasser himself. Consequently Israel retaliated. This being the case the Israelis were ultimately justified in doing what they did. Their only mistake was trying to cover it up which was wrong. But the main premise is this: Israel was attacked so she retaliated.

The phony Muslim Brotherhood illustrates the duplicity of Israelis, which has some relevance here.

Edited by Mike Renzulli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does the Muslim Brotherhood's historical connection to the Nazis have to do with Ohio?

(For that matter what did the Nazis have to do with Ohio!)

Some not too bright people argue: the historical Zionists collaborated with the Nazis, therefore the Zionists today are Nazis warmed over. The premise is true but the argument leaks.

However a good case could be made that Zionists are Communists warmed over. Maybe I'll write an article about that sometime. Here's a little tidbit. David Ben-Gurion was the chief founder of Israel and its first Prime Minister. The following is from “Zionism, Socialism and United States Support for the Jewish Colonization of Palestine in the 1920s” by Lawrence Davidson (references afterwards):

“For Ben Gurion it was Palestine’s destiny to be developed as a socialist Jewish state. (12) Here the model was the early Soviet state. ‘We are following a new path,’ Ben Gurion explained in 1921, ‘which contradicts developments in the whole world except Russia.’ (13) This led him to pay homage to the Soviet Union for ‘her great spiritual influence on our movement and our work in Palestine.’ (14) In these years Ben Gurion came to idolize Lenin and he even adopted the dress of the Soviet leaders – a quasi military uniform of rough wool. (15)” (References: 12 David M. Edelman, The Story of Ben Gurion; 13 Yonathan Shapiro, The Formative Years of the Israeli Labour Party; 14 Shabtai Teveth, Ben Gurion. See also Edelman, ibid; 15 Michael Bar-Zohar, Ben Gurion.)

That's ancient history but it foreshadows a practical connection between Israel and the Soviet Union, despite apparent antagonism, which harmed the U.S.

Mike Renzulli wrote regarding the Lavon Affair:

"keep in mind what the context of the operation was the result of."

Whenever you hear the word "context" from an Objectivist beware a pull on the wool above your eyes. Israelis lied to Americans, risked murdering Americans, and did destroy U.S property. Israel's supporters justify this with Israel's "context." It was in a good cause, Israel. That justifies the lying and all the rest.

Firing on the U.S.S. Liberty for an hour and twenty minutes was in the context of ... well, that's a hard one to make fly, better make it an innocent mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, you are discrediting yourself and demonstrating your irrationality with each post you make since you are using nothing more than strawman arguments. As far as your assertions that Zionists collaborated with Nazi's the source of this accusation is questionable since the Jews Against Zionism group you cite is against the state of Israel because it was not created or given to the Jews by God as foretold in the Old Testament. That being the case, groups like JAZ will work to undermine Israel until God finally gives them their state. Being that I am an atheist (and I assume you are to) you know that in reality it will never happen since there aren't any gods or supernatural planes or beings that exist.

In terms of the affiliation or relations that Israel had with the USSR, while a mistake, it is not an indication of wrongdoing per se but a logical and diplomatic mistake on the part of Israel at the time. I can't speak for why the Israelis had close relations with the USSR and only they can answer. It's possible because the Zionists were communists and wanted to have relations with Mother Russia.

Rather than seek the truth it seems instead you seek to slander using evidence that fits your bias to make your case. I have studied Middle Eastern politics and foreign policy intricately and after doing so concluded that the U.S. is right to stand by Israel. She is not only our staunchest ally in the war against the jihadists but also because she is a bulwark against them with an excellent military and clandestine apparatus to do so. You also completely ignore or are oblivious to the underlying philosophy of the jihadist groups since it is that mysticial outlook that drives them to do what they do.

Let's not forget that Israel itself is a quasi-Westernized country with a functioning democracy, fairly independent courts that any Israeli citizen can access to resolve a dispute and a fairly free economy. An island of some semblance of sanity that is surrounded by theocratic despots yet you call for Israel's demise.

As far as Ben-Guiron admiring Vladimir Lenin, Murray Rothbard had an affinity for Lenin too. To your making this an issue I say: ho-hum. Men can have affinities for evil people but it does not mean that they are right. Today, however, Israel's parliament is controlled by a center-right party whose platform calls for the deregulation of the country's economy, lifting taxes and privatize numerous state-owned services. Are you saying this is bad or that Israel should still be sacrificed despite it being a Westernized country?

As to the U.S.S. Liberty if you bothered to dig deeper you will see that Israel immediately apologized for the affair and sent compensation to the injured and dead service member's families. The U.S.S. Liberty was a serious mistake and Israel owned up for it happening in the best manner possible. It is unfortunate that instead of truly doing a true investigation into the facts you instead seek to slander or misrepresent.

Shame on you.

Some not too bright people argue: the historical Zionists collaborated with the Nazis, therefore the Zionists today are Nazis warmed over. The premise is true but the argument leaks.

However a good case could be made that Zionists are Communists warmed over. Maybe I'll write an article about that sometime. Here's a little tidbit. David Ben-Gurion was the chief founder of Israel and its first Prime Minister. The following is from “Zionism, Socialism and United States Support for the Jewish Colonization of Palestine in the 1920s” by Lawrence Davidson (references afterwards):

“For Ben Gurion it was Palestine’s destiny to be developed as a socialist Jewish state. (12) Here the model was the early Soviet state. ‘We are following a new path,’ Ben Gurion explained in 1921, ‘which contradicts developments in the whole world except Russia.’ (13) This led him to pay homage to the Soviet Union for ‘her great spiritual influence on our movement and our work in Palestine.’ (14) In these years Ben Gurion came to idolize Lenin and he even adopted the dress of the Soviet leaders – a quasi military uniform of rough wool. (15)” (References: 12 David M. Edelman, The Story of Ben Gurion; 13 Yonathan Shapiro, The Formative Years of the Israeli Labour Party; 14 Shabtai Teveth, Ben Gurion. See also Edelman, ibid; 15 Michael Bar-Zohar, Ben Gurion.)

That's ancient history but it foreshadows a practical connection between Israel and the Soviet Union, despite apparent antagonism, which harmed the U.S.

Mike Renzulli wrote regarding the Lavon Affair:

"keep in mind what the context of the operation was the result of."

Whenever you hear the word "context" from an Objectivist beware a pull on the wool above your eyes. Israelis lied to Americans, risked murdering Americans, and did destroy U.S property. Israel's supporters justify this with Israel's "context." It was in a good cause, Israel. That justifies the lying and all the rest.

Firing on the U.S.S. Liberty for an hour and twenty minutes was in the context of ... well, that's a hard one to make fly, better make it an innocent mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike R responds to my USS Liberty link with "shame on you" — a typical, faux-Objectivist, ex cathedra, moral pronouncement that might as well come from a parrot.

It’s no shame to look into the USS Liberty affair more deeply than Israeli press releases. It’s no shame to prefer the eye-witness accounts of U.S. sailors.

It’s funny in a way. Either the Israelis tried to sink the Liberty with all hands knowing it was an American ship, or they were utter morons. Faced with that choice afterwards, when everyone knows what happened, they present themselves as utter morons!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That some proto-Israelis worked with the Nazis isn’t controversial. I brought it up because Mike R apparently believes that because the Arabs worked with the Nazis the Arabs are stained forever. If so why not the Israelis? (The point being that both bits of history have little relevance today.) The group "Jews Against Zionism" comes from the orthodox Jewish camp. Their motivation for setting forth Zionism’s disgraceful history is a separate issue from the history itself.

Eventually I’ll write an ARI Watch article about the collaboration of the Israelis and the Soviets. I’ve got a lot of other things to do first, so keep breathing, LOL. It’s not my duty here to lecture history. It takes a lot of words and time.

Mike R. writes that Israel

"... is not only our staunchest ally in the war against the jihadists but also because she is a bulwark against them with an excellent military and clandestine apparatus to do so."

The usual line, but I’m not buying. Per "This Is Our Ally?" Israel has used its (U.S. funded) military and clandestine apparatus against America.

As for Israel being a bulwark, was it very effective preventing 9/11?

Israel isn’t the "bastion of freedom" its promoters claim. It looks good only when compared with an [expletive deleted] country like Saudi Arabia. It’s far more statist than any country in Europe. Compared to America it’s the pits.

Israel’s relative superiority 6,000 miles away doesn’t give it an option on your life. Those wishing to promote Israel know this, especially in Objectivist circles, so they spin your sacrifice into your interest. Yes, your being forced to finance Israel is in your interest — double-talk they really believe because in spirit they inhabit the 51st state of Israel.

Mike R. argues as follows: Murray Rothbard had "an affinity" for Lenin – whatever that means – therefore Ben Gurion’s admiration for the Bolsheviks and his emulation of the early Soviet Union is excusable. Come again? Since when did Rothbard become a standard of proper behavior, and when did he ever promote Lenin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Israel is not America’s friend. It may be a friend of the U.S. government, but it’s no friend of Americans – elaborated in "This Is Our Ally." Regarding Mike Renzulli’s post ... We were talking about the Clarion Fund's Zionist propaganda directed at Americans, paid for by Aish HaTorah. Why bring up the historical Nazi-Arab connection here? It makes as much sense as bringing up the historical Nazi-Zionist connection. The phony Muslim Brotherhood illustrates the duplicity of Israelis, which has some relevance here. One good way to defend the U.S. from the authentic Muslim Brotherhood is simply end, permanently, all Third World immigration, and vet immigrants from Europe.

Mark,

I think it is your selective naivety that is most irritating.

I have a news flash for you: EVERYBODY has an angle.

Every newspaper that I worked for had an 'editorial policy' (euphemistic for preferred view, a bias).

Every one of these online videos is aggrandizing one thing, and conveniently overlooking another.

To some degree, or other.

If you have your own preferred view or prejudice (which is immediately apparent), you are a pushover for some propagandist.

Would you believe it - that Israel also has an 'angle'? One called 'existence'.

(btw, your Nazi/Leninist/Socialist connections are argumentative red herrings.)

Now it shocks you that a Jewish-backed organization (openly) puts out a pro-Israel piece - which I'm sure contains a strong element of truth. Who did you expect to be behind it - Costa Ricans?

Israel was silent too long, and has finally been stung into action by, I'd imagine, that Goldstone Report debacle, and is beginning to be aware of its public relations image in the world. About time.

Were you objecting likewise against the constant stream of pro-Palestinian disinformation (and daily "Kill the Zionists" Arab radio broadcasts) that has been ongoing since the '70's? When Israel stayed silent? No, I didn't think so.

Considering your selective use of facts and principles, I realise you are not naive; you are too knowledgable for that.

Your cavalier attitude towards the lives of millions displays your prejudice, and knowing evasions.

It is clear to me, there is not the slightest difference between you and the "Nuke Tehran!" lobby in ARI that you rail against.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore the name-calling. whYNOT asks sarcastically:

"Would you believe it – that Israel also has an ‘angle’? One called ‘existence’."

— OK, but not at my expense, if you please. The expense is two-pronged: U.S. foreign aid to Israel is one prong, abuse from Israel is the other.

"... it shocks you that a Jewish-backed organization (openly) puts out a pro-Israel piece ..."

— Why no, of course not. As for openly, Clarion adamantly denies any connection to Aish HaTorah.

"Who did you expect to be behind it [Clarion’s film] – Costa Ricans?"

— I didn’t expect that, no.

"Israel was silent too long ..."

— Right, AIPAC and countless other pro-Israel organizations have been silent all these years. Now I am being sarcastic.

One needn’t object to every iniquity on earth before objecting to Israel. I criticize Israel here because the subject of this thread is the Clarion Fund’s pro-war propaganda. I claim it’s Israeli propaganda masquerading as American, and it pretends to be for the benefit of Americans when it’s really for the benefit of Israel.

I’ll say this for the Arabs, at least they don’t pretend to be your ally while stabbing you in the back. They say they hate you and stab you in the front.

The U.S. should never have entered the quarrel between Arabs and Israelis six thousand miles away – which it did not long after WW II. If whYNOT himself wants to emigrate and fight for Israel, I wouldn’t stop him. But I’m sick of being made a host and cats-paw for a socialist rat-hole on the other side of the earth.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...