FOX News (link) airs Most Important Interview on Earth?

Just as the majority were not all brainwashed to believe the sun orbited the earth or that the world was flat. Oh do tell us how the mainstream cannot possibly be so mentally complacent as to follow whatever are the prevailing status quo beliefs and convictions of the moment.

These "extremists" indeed have more historically and contextually (let alone scripturally and principly) accurate positions than the bandwagon crowd which uterly fails to grasp the consistency of principle between the Zionist ideology (fully institutionalised into the Israel state system) and all other European colonialist, group superiority/exceptionalistic ideologies of the late 19th/early 20th century (i.e. Naziism and Apartheid).

The state of Israel is an abomination having nothing to do with the flowery PR of simply wanting a homeland (given that its citizens all had legitimate and rightful citizenships elsewhere) and everything to do with wanting to perpetuate a colonialist powerbase for an ideological movement of hate and bigotry against the rightful indigenous people of the region.

Even the minority Arab Jews of Palestine of that era recognised the Zionist enterprise for its ethnocidal intent and opposed it bitterly for the division, dehumanisation and destruction they understood it would bring to long peacefully coexistent communities.

The entire modern history of Israel sold to successive generations (especially in Israel and the US) is a complete fabricated PR whitewash. It's little wonder apologists like yourself suffer from such mental divergence in wanting to criticise but yet still defending the conceptual/political legitimacy of the state.

You might as well make apology for the continuation of the Nazi and Apartheid regimes as well since they are all of the same ideological cloth.

 

So what your saying, if I read you correctly, is that nationhood in general is evil. Unfortunatley, for your position, almost every nation that exists today was forged through war and destruction of some kind. Our own nation sadly undertook a policy of war against the natives of this land. Your so hoplelessly connected to your self-righteous, anarchistic anger, that you don't even hear what people say. I guess in your world, every nation would be dissolved right? The word "apologist" seems to be prominent among the anti-Israeli types here, its nothing more than a blind generalization. You accuse me of being indoctrinated for Israel, a claim I can't really repell since I'm Jewish, but you have been no less indoctrinated against it. At least I am willing compromise on the issue, despite having a "mental divergence" as you claim. Have you even considered the possibilty of letting the past go? Of focusing on the present situation? My point is this: let go of your hatred, stop flinging labels at people, try to actualy hear what people say instead of having a reflexive response to issues. In your thinking it seems that Israel=Evildoers and Arabs=innocent victims. In reality, both sides have commited terrible crimes that have stifled the advance of peace.

 

Nowehere was such an argument even remotely suggested, my how you excel at the mental gymnastics of avoiding the point clearly made. Apparently critical rationality is a dsicipline no longer taught to our young.

Unfortunately for YOUR apparent excusatory argument, the modern state of Israel was born of an ideological aspiration to power by a movement which has consistently hidden beind a thin (and religiously false) facade of Jewishness and cries of "anti-semitism", despite its being essentially atheistic in character. In reality it was and has remained wholly akin in racist militant principle and intent to the very ideological movement (Naziism) upon whose overthrow and judgement it furthered its grasping agenda of deplorable ethnocidal/genocidal and terroristic colonialistic subjugation.

To fail to grasp this fact in your effort to seem "fair" only identifies you as all the more morally and politically unastute, uncritical and inconsistent. Again, you might as well call for fair treatment for and a return to Apartheid rule in South Africa (since the "both sides are equally to blame" argument characterised the decades of PR put forth to justify that regime's crimes against humanity as well).

If by "nation" you mean the state of Israel, it is beyond sad (a weaker token rebuke to a consistent and continued ideological agenda of ethnocide and militant expansionism one would be hard pressed to find), it is outright criminal.

If, however, by "nation" you somehow refer to Judaism itself, then I would suggest you have indeed internalised Zionist doctrine and mythology to such an extent you apparently fail to grasp the odious similarity of said notion with the very beliefs espoused by Naziism itself in that regard. Judaism is a religion not a nation. Jews are not one distinct cohesive group but rather the citizens of many nations who happen to share a similar relgion just as hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists et al. happen to do. None of the latter "deserve" or have any intrinsic "right" to a geographically defined exclusivistic statehood, least of all one born of self-acknowledged intent to disposses and/or destroy those already rightfully resident within that terroritory.

This is not a phenomenon lost in the annals of history but one for which the original heinous crimes through which it implanted itself remain within living memories and are suffered daily by millions by calculated political design and international collusion.

Acknowledgement of the crime and odious ideological movement and agenda which underpins and informs every facet of Israeli society and its institutional structures has nothing whatsoever to do my "self-righteousness". That you should revert to such a dodge speaks volumes about your own lack of intellectual honesty on the matter and/or inability to differentiate between self-promotion and arguments concerning ongoing, historically-contextualised political reality.

Your additional referral to "anti-Israeli" (a thinly veiled alternate to the standard "anti-semitic" line of Zionist PR) is the true " blind generalisation" in this argument.

Actually, like many Jews who do in fact denounce the modern Zionist state of Israel for what it truly is, you can if you so choose to open your eyes and apply some consistent critical rationality to the matter. The state of Israel, contrary to its widespread mainstream media-assisted propaganda, is NOT the representative entity of Judaism, but of the Zionist ideology alone.

Further, the fact that the pervasiveness and insinuation into the mainstream psyche of its ideological myths - both about the state and the character of Judaism itself - has been for generations due to an even greater adoption of Zionism by apocalyptic evandelical "christian" circles (for far more "anti-semitic" beliefs than you apparently realise) makes your standard "jewish" associations all the more uninformed.

Sorry to say, I have not been "indoctrinated" for or against anything, son. I have lived long enough, travelled widely enough and studied the matter sufficiently to recognise the falsity of the accepted "mainstream" surface apprehension of the conflict and its true underlying (and ongoing) colonialist-ideology intents. Add to that nearly 20 years of professional experience in foreign affairs and, sorry to say, tis you who need reflect on what you believe and why you believe it.

In point of fact, at your age I too was sold on the idea of the legitimacy of the state of Israel and all the arguments that go therewith.

To take this in its parts:

1.

Are you so accommodating with regard to the posotions and arguments presented by Nazis in their time, or by the Apartheid South African government? I doubt it and rightfully so. Consistency of principle demands you make no more concession to an equally heinous and equally insitutionalised ideological dynamic simply because of whitewashed myth presented to you as mainstream "fact".

2.

"Letting the past go" seems to be an increasingly accepted intellectual vogue in the public discourse, especially in the US. Sadly, to the general US mainstream psyche "the past" comprises any subject which is no longer repeated on the nightly "news" (term applied very limited).

Given that this conflict was evisaged as necessary and right by Herzl and more so by Weizmann and the other seminal ideologues of the Zionist movement - as it has been consistently to the present by successive Israeli leaders - "the past" I'm afraid is indistinguishable from the present in the minds of those forced to suffer the under-reported daily onslaught and inhumanity of its institutionalised perpetuation.

Let me ask you, what should be the statute of limitation on ethnocide and other crimes against humanity? Should former Nazis have been simply left to die off in their lands of refuge or was it right to bring them to justice even in advanced age? You obviously have not taken your arguments to their ultimate ends nor examined their inherent moral and political inconsistencies too carefully. I strongly suggest you do so in the years ahead of you.

To call the denouncement of Naziism/Apartheid "proper" or "just" and yet denouncement and acknoweldgement of the crimes and illegitimate propaganda of Zionsim "hatred", is indeed indicative of intellectual divergence.
The consistently principled approach is not "reactionistic nor "reflexive" in character, but wholly measured and indicative of a commitment to invesitgate behind the standard snippets and soundbites that pass for mainstream "informed opinion" on the matter. I suggest you follow your own advice and actually hear what is being said (and that by legitimate anti-Zionist jews and non-Jews alike) let alone what you apparently failed to grasp from what you read into my post above.

I would gladly provide you with a number of substantive sources to get you started on your examination behind the commonly held mainstream myths and propaganda, if you care to actually take the time to pursue greater awareness.

3.

No, "in reality" the institutionalised Zionist ideological agenda of the state of Israel has never wished for peace nor sought any end other than the complete subjugation or final complete dispossession and accompanying emigration of the indigenous and rightful peoples of the region. This is intrinsic to the ideological tenet of "Greater Israel" which is central to the ongoing state agenda and its successive governments, however enshrouded in public soundbites and "gestures" of peace they and their cadres of clever spin artists attempt to paint them and the situation.

By perpetuating the conflict, the steady status quo confiscation of Palestinian land is afforded legitimacy under the pretext of "self defence", whilst being nothing of the sort. Similarly, by perpetuating the conflict the state of Israel maintains the leverage of politically manipulated support of major powers, particularly that of Washington, and the obscene economic/military appropriations that have gone and continue to go therewith.

The truth of the matter is as truly criminal as it is nefarious in its operation and its intents from well before the actual founding of the state itself right through to the present day. The Third Reich could have only hoped to have generated such longevity of impunity.

If you think my arguments boil down to nothing more than "hate" and "anti-semitism" then sadly you have missed the entire point, I'm sad to say.

 

They deserve no airtime, it is just a couple of rabbies... they DO NOT represent anything other than thier sad opinions.

Who is asking for the destruction of all the middle east? I have never heard anyone, other than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Nassrallah, asking for complete destruction of something.

No one in the population of Israel is brainwashed by the media or government. The people of Israel are peaceful and radically liberal... this is why they have not destoryed Lebanon, Syria, and Iran yet (They defenatly do have the weapons to do so)... any other country in the world, facing such terror, would have certainly acted more drastically. It is just that enough is enough... The Hezbollah is directly supported by Lebanon's president... he is choosing to bring his country and his people into this war.

 

This is the most ludicrous thing I've read in weeks. You can't be serious.

 

It shouldn't be a matter of who is "asking" for the destruction of the Middle East, but who is actually CAPABLE of the destruction of the Middle East. I don't believe it to be Iran or any country other than Israel, which has both the ability and the motive.

People like freemason Ehud Olmert (a sick, hideous, vile excuse for a human being) make people like Ahmadinejad look like an angel by comparison. I have yet to see any pictures of dead and mutilated Lebanese babies caused by Ahmadinejad.

The only reason Israel isn't looked upon as the REAL terrorists is because they aren't cast as such. After all, it's not Muslims who control the media.

 

You can see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad angelic nature as he enforces stict shiara courts in Iran. This week to a 16 year old disabled Iranian girl, who was tried in public sharia court for being unable to resist the rape of a married man.

She was hung as she begged god for forgiveness.

He also actively supports programs to train and fund Hezbollah guerillas. It wouldn't be difficult to argue that he's partially responsible for Lebanese civilian deaths. It's undeniable he's resposible for Israeli deaths.

It's a complicated situation. I want a cease fire now, but I'm nor sure angelic is the word I would use for Ahmadinejad.

 

I said an angel BY COMPARISON! Stop twisting my words. Sure Ahmadinejad is a vile motherfucker, but he's more bark than bite. He poses no immediate threat to anyone, but the propaganda is really starting to boil over now as things reach a head over in the Middle East.

Much of the nonsense you're spewing about programs funding and training Hezbollah is hearsay, and is just more neocon propaganda. It's no different than the lies we were given about Saddam having connections with Osama, which has been proven to be utter bullshit, but useful enough in convincing the braindead masses that we needed to go to war with Iraq.

 

I wasn't trying to twist your words, I was trying to convey my point of how displacable Ahmadinejad is.

I do agree that the Iranian regime isn't a direct threat, to western citizens. The bounty on [size=-1]Salman Rushdie keeps increasing all the time, and I see him pop up on tv every couple months.

But comeon, Iranian sponsorship of Shia militias is well documented
in Lebanon, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Somalia. In the begining of the Israeli Lebanese war many of the Arab governments were pretty silent because of their fears of Iranian sponsored militaries.

Iran openly embraces Shia militants. You can't compare that to the tenuous relationship of Iraq to Al Qaeda that was presented as a pretext to the Iraq war.
[/size]

 

Interesting how you echo the time worn mantras of our corporate media about the alleged extensive funding of guerilla movements by Iran and yet utterly fail to condemn the much more significantly documented and decades long funding by our own government and major arms contractors of heinous rightwing paramilitary movements in far more countries (and mostly unstable conflict-ridden ones to boot) than Iran could ever be accused of.

Fact is, Lodui, in your brief 21 years you havent the breadth of experience nor obvious depth of personal research into most foreign policy issues on which you regularly regurgitate your hand me down status quo diversionary quips.

No country in the world outdoes our own in arms sales, no country outdoes our own in arming, financing and training of "terrorist" groups and no two countries have cause more suffering, destabilisation and undermining of the very liberal democratic principles - routinely hailed as our "shared values" - as well as those who have demonstrated a commitment to democratic principles and practice than have the US and Israel throughout the Middle East.

Perhaps you need a refresher on our (both US and Israel's) quarter century of support for the brutal and repressive Shah following US covert-assisted overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadegh (one of many Washington-backed attacks on third country democratic systems and personalities throughout the 20th century). That chapter of our underreported and by now mostly whitewashed history in the region makes the present cadre of corporate media vogue villains (Saddam, Ahmadinejad, Assad, et al.) look like cub leaguers.

From reading your posts these many months its all too apparent that you have nothing more than the most surface grasp of nearly every discussion you wade into. This discussion is simply another example of your youthfully inexperienced and wholly gullible media-fed acceptance of soundbites over contextualised substantive appreciation for the real protagonists and their demonstrable practices in perpetuating conflict in the region.

 

WELL SAID, Lick!

 

Lick, the US support of the Shah before 1979 which was a very repressive brutal regime, has no clear connections to Iran backing Shia militias today. You could draw connections certainly, but that discussions completly abstract to the point.

It seems you're trying to draw on your vast knowledge of Persian culture before the Iranian revolution, by mentioning the fact that Washington supported the Shah. Sorry, thats not extensive knowledge, and if you're not even going to pretend to connect the dots, it sounds like you just like to hear yourself type.

The US also does export more arms then any other nation. I don't recall bringing up the fact that Washington was innocent in arming the Middle East, so it sounds again like it doesn't have anything to do with my point there either.

It could be a different point, although you frame it like it's an argument aginst what I posted. It's not. You didn't post anything substantial.

Feel free to wow me with your insight of who the US supported in the Iraq-Iran war next. That would really broaden my perspective.

 

I told you Matt, I am done with you. You are not worth arguing with, you are not capable of a discussion because you are BRAINWASHED... amazingly you managed to do it to yourself.

I would truly feel sorry for the world is Ahmadinejad is not taken out of power in a year or two... a nuclear holocust would be a terrible end for us to end existence.

 

I know that I am more aware of the situation than you or practically any other poster here, and Loudi seems to be one of the few people on this site who actually UNDERSTAND the situation.

I myself at first felt odd about this war, and it was terribly executed at the beginning... but the Israeli side is catching on now.

 

Spoken like the apologist for war crimes and crimes against humanity that you have long pegged yourself as being Rubin.

Interesting however that one who makes such repeated excuses for Israeli atrocities (and advances the false Zionist revisionist history of the state) should be displaying such cowardice by running away from his supposed civic duty to fight the battle against "terrorists" that he so ardently argues.

If you think a mere wet behind ears 21 year old with but a handful of years of political awakening (and that clearly shaped to the greater extent by status quo mainstream decontextualised, compartmentalised "reporting") has even the faintest clue of the dynamics behind this generations long ideologically intended conflict, you are as navie as he.

Nothing surprising on any of these counts though, as you have so aptly demonstrated in your many posts.

Catching on amongst a preciously small minority perhaps, but you are deluding yourself (or living under a rock) if you think the "Israeli side" is inspiring anything other than increasing recognition for the institutionalised aparatus of ethnocide and colonialist expansionism at the core of the Zionist agenda.

Quite to the contrary of your preferred and gullibly swallowed official rhetoric (from the warmongering criminal cabal in Washington and Israel), Israel's latest indiscriminate mass targetting of innocent civilians and the extensive destruction of civilian infrastructure has done nothing more than undermine support for the fragile pro-Western elements in Lebanon and increased public support for Hezbollah exponentially.

Quite telling that you continue to wrap yourself in denial of the most obvious reality of the situation. Rabid nationalism does go hand in hand with willful blind ignorance though.

 

A 21 year old with but the faintest grasp of current events again presumes to present himself as credibly capable of "connecting the dots" to events for which he was not even alive to witness is perhaps one of the most humourous posts youve made yet Lodui.

Obviously you have no interest in learning, merely regurgitating the soundbites of your preferred populist icons hailed regularly as "experts" on corporate nightly news.

You truly have no clue whatsoever of the interconnectnedness of events and the underlying agenda which guide them. It cannot be stressed strongly or repeatedly enough, turn off the tv, put down the corporate rags and go inform yourself your with substantive analyses and firsthand experience as I have done since you were in diapers. Perhaps with time and effort your youthful naivete might just become embarrassingly apparent to you as well.

 

Lick, you brought up the Mossadegh government as if it was somehow counter to my point, without a coherent argument of your own. Only my age.

You also mention the US government exporting arms as if that justifies and counters my assertion that Iran sponsors Shia militias.

Apparently not the knowing the intricacies of a secret globalist plot involved in this which you read online means my understanding of the situation is limited.

If you had a deep understanding of these plots, you could explain a relationship between the overthrow of the Mossagegh government, present Iranian backing of Shia militants, how US arms export justifies these, and how my mentioning of only the most relevant to the present Lebaense situation means I fail to understand the other factors.

If you could make a coherent argument, you'd have made it in you last post, rather then ironically spending three paragraphs talking about my immaturity. Do you spew crumbs when you type? You have a lot of rage and no depth. I should think someone of your extensive background in Persian history would be able to make a point instead of throwing vauge jabs.

Feel free to spend another few paragraphs flinging insults at my youth rather then addressing the historical events you drew upon your extensive knowledge of (saying they happened) in an attempt to counter my statments that Iran funds Shia militants with no context.

 

Lick, this is question that has been a long time coming and I'm wholly surprised no one has come at you with it.

But, who the hell are you? Seriously, who do you think you are? Your ego is incredible.

Quit talking down to people like you are someone important because you aren't. You are just some shmuck on the internet like the rest of us.

Seriously, having to sift through your condescending, pseudo-intellectual elitism is like having to listen to the squicky sound of someone chewing on tinfoil.

 

You are free to consider yourself a schmuck if you so choose, cynical. Who I am is of little import, the reality of the issues of which you apparently consider yourself "informed" from standard santised US media snippets, are what matter.

I wouldnt know anything about chewing on tinfoil, however, perhaps you should enlighten us.