Exclusief: Joodse bankier zegt getipt te zijn over aanslag in London

[Pascal L.]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door /\|cazar

Eigenlijk loopt u er met open ogen in.
De haat tegen de joden stijgt met de dag. Zij zullen allemaal uitgeroeid worden.

Nu vind ik toch dat ge te ver begint te gaan Alcazar. Ik begrijp wel dat u als moslim de stoom van de ketel probeert te halen, maar uw type haat begint een beetje verderfelijk te worden ... en ja, ik heb de rest van uw post gelezen, dat u het niet leuk zal vinden als alle joden uitgeroeid zullen worden etc... BS, en belangrijker, uw haat zal zich misschien wel tegen u keren.

[Pindar]

Het is dan ook niet gemakkelijk om te onthouden wie van de conspiracy lunatics exact welke versie van de wereldwijde samenzwering gelooft.....

De zaken niet omdraaien he Alcaseltzer.
Tot nader order ben JIJ nog altijd de gek die denkt dat hij Napoleon is en
die andere mensen verwijt dat ze de realiteit ontkennen.

Willlen we eens een poll...

Anderzijds horen samerzwerende klieken die streven naar wereldheerschappij
eerder thuis in films van James Bond of beter nog : Austin...

Exodus,
even voor de duidelijkheid :

Alex Jones en Prisonplanet.com en andere conspiracy theory websites voldoen NIET als bron voor het soort beweringen dat jij maakt

pff, ik lees die posts van Pindar niet meer.
Te onnozel naar mijn idee. Er zijn limieten mijn geduld en als ik echt naar debiele crap wil kijken of luisteren dan zet ik de tv aan en kijk naar
een...

En dat heb ik dan ook niet gedaan! Leer lezen wat er staat er bedenk er niet het uwe bij.

Wat ik Exodus heb verweten is dat hij een onnozele fait-divers in zijn complottheoriëen inpast enkel en...

U oordeel over mij kan me echt geen barst schelen. Uw pseudo-wetenschappelijk gedoe evenmin.
Ik ben door niets bezeten, ik lees gewoon de onzin die u hier post om haat te zaaien tegen één groep...

Ik lees de onzin van /\lcazar, Zwarte Orde, Breydel, en ik trek daar mijn conclusies uit, hoor.

U krijgt hier de "ernst" die u verdient.

(En dronken ben ik trouwens nooit.)

Tja, Exodus, je kan uiteraard geen van deze beweringen hard maken.

Bovendien is het hele verhaal zo inconsistent als maar mogelijk is.

De illuminati (om maar deze naam te gebruiken) zijn dus...

Dat doet u wel, herlees uw eigen posts maar.
Dat u dat niet zegt doet er niet toe. De protocollen zijn wat ze zijn, ze beschrijven een joods complot, en daar gelooft u in.
Flagrant fout.

en lees nu dit:

[size=3][size=6]Will the Real Paranoids Please Raise Their Hands?[/size][/size]

[size=3]When one dares to dig beneath the surface of governmental programs to reveal undisclosed purposes, he or she is usually met with charges of being a "paranoid" defender of "conspiracy theories." [/size]

[size=3][/size]

[size=3]More often than not, such an accusation silences the questioner, as it is designed to do.[/size]

[size=3][/size]

[size=3] I long ago came to the conclusion that those who chastise others for spouting "conspiracy theories" tend to do so because they don’t want the implications of their own schemes revealed to the public. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!," intoned the Wizard of Oz, an admonition designed to intimidate the inquisitive into silence.[/size]

[size=3]I, for one, gladly admit to the embracing of any conspiracy theory for which there is credible evidence. [/size]
[size=3][/size]
[size=3]But those who condemn me for my views never seem interested in examining the evidence,[/size]
[size=3][/size]
[size=3] their purposes being more to prevent the raising of discomforting questions. Having read a good deal of history over the years, I ask my critics to account for the countless foreign intrigues, plots, assassinations, alliances, and other cabals that have been at the heart of so much of the history of the world. Do Shakespeare’s tragedies – almost all of which are grounded in conspiracies of one kind or another – have nothing to teach us about the machinations of human behavior? [/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]A Jewish acquaintance once criticized me for my views, adding "there are no conspiracies." "May I quote you on that?," I asked. He could not understand my purpose in wanting to do so, so I told him: "because it’s not often one hears Jewish people denying the Nazi holocaust the way you just did." After advising him that the "Nazi holocaust" requires a conspiracy of German government officials, he was prepared to modify his statement to allow for the kinds of conspiracies that he believed in.[/size][/font]

[size=3]One of my colleagues, who teaches antitrust law, attacked me for defending even the idea of "conspiracies," until I asked him if he intended to reduce his course from three units to one. "Since so much of antitrust law consists of ‘conspiracies’ to restrain trade, or fix prices, or divide up markets, or monopolize an industry, or engage in such more subtle ‘conspiracies’ as ‘conscious parallelism,’ I assume that, since you do not believe in conspiracies, you will take the lead in condemning such specious theories." [/size][/font]

[size=3]Conspiracy theories abound in our society, and are widely accepted, . . . provided you are identifying the "politically correct" conspiracy. [/size]
[size=3][/size]
[size=3]World War II was conducted, in part, on the premise that the so-called "axis powers" were conspiring to take over the world. But if one tries to offer evidence that FDR secretly manipulated the Japanese into an attack on Pearl Harbor in order to serve his political agenda, the "anti-conspiracy league" quickly appears to attack not the evidence, but the state of mind of the accuser. When World War II ended, the "international communist conspiracy" was hurriedly rushed onstage to justify the commitment of trillions of dollars of wealth and hundreds of thousands of lives to fight a "Cold War." When the "Cold War" critics began to speak and write about how this campaign was designed to serve American corporate-state interests at the expense of the American people, the "anti-conspiracy league" was again called into action.[/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]For those who are paying attention, the incongruity of the critics of conspiracy theories should be apparent. "We are busy conducting wars against sinister foreign conspiracies," they might argue, "and anyone who suggests that we might be engaged in conspiracies of our own, are ‘paranoids.’" "They" conspire, in other words, but "we" do not. [/size]
[size=3][/size]
[size=3]A childishly simple explanation for consumption by childishly simple minds.[/size]

[size=3]"Paranoia" consists not in a fear of others, but in a baseless fear. Would one regard a Jew, in Nazi Germany, as "paranoid," because he thought the government was out to do him harm? If so, how would we characterize the state of mind of another Jew, similarly located, who did not see any threat from his government? When one further considers how preoccupied government officials are with protecting themselves from those they imagine themselves to represent– to the point of routinely having bomb-sniffing dogs, armed security guards, and military helicopters and soldiers accompany their public appearances – it should be asked: just who is being "paranoid?" [/size][/font]

[size=3]It is interesting to observe the psychological projection that takes place in such dynamics. [/size]
[size=3][/size]
[size=3]The defenders of statism attack their critics as "paranoids" while, at the same time, fostering an endless supply of "enemies" against whom they promise us protection! Politics thrives on the mobilization of the fear of others. [/size]
[size=3][/size]
[size=3]President Bush’s unilateral declaration of a permanent war against the rest of the world can only be premised upon the most paranoid assumption that everyone else is involved in a conspiracy against American interests![/size]

[size=3]It has always been comforting to most people to imagine, albeit unconsciously, that the "dark side" of their personality – i.e., the capacity for violence, dishonesty, bigotry, etc. – can be severed from themselves and projected onto others, against whom punitive action can then be taken. All that occurs in such behavior, of course, is the punishment of the others who stand in as scapegoats for the feared shortcomings of those engaged in projecting.[/size]
[size=3][/size]
[size=3] This kind of thinking has produced the current Bush-induced mindset [/size]
[size=3][/size]
[size=3]that when America bombs other countries – killing innocent men, women, and children in the process – it is a force for "good" defending "freedom." When these other countries retaliate for such attacks – killing innocent men, women, and children in so doing – they represent the forces of "evil" engaged in "terrorism." [/size]
[size=3][/size]
[size=3]That grown men and women can internalize this kind of playground logic, particularly when the consequences are so deadly, is indeed frightening. [/size]

[size=3]This war – whose name is ever-changing – has moved far beyond simply retaliation against those responsible for attacking the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11th. It has become more of a self-righteous "holy crusade" against nations that are unprepared to acknowledge America as the rightful ruler of the entire world. Neo-conservative zealots have exploited the September 11th tragedy to pursue a much broader agenda of American hegemony. It is no longer sufficient to track down the perpetrators of that attack, the war must be expanded to include nations whose identities seem to have been selected from someone’s Rolodex file of place-names! "Who shall we attack next?" has been the operative question around Washington. After months of bombing Afghanistan, President Bush was quick to declare an "Axis of Evil" as the broader enemy, suggesting that North Korea, Iraq, and Iran were engaged in some conspiracy, apparently of satanic dimensions, against America. Soon, new candidates were offered up for public consumption: the Philippines, Indonesia, Somalia, the Sudan, Colombia, and perhaps other Middle Eastern or African nations. The candidates for inclusion on this list may include anyone unprepared to genuflect before American interests. (The list will presumably not include China, which would likely offer deadly resistance.) [/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]Let us suppose that some criminal has engaged in a violent attack upon your Uncle Willie’s home. Let us suppose, further, that Willie has undertaken a campaign to discover – and bring to account – the perpetrators of this offense. This would be a perfectly rational response on his part, for which the rest of us would likely lend our support. But suppose that Willie goes further than this and, not being able to discover the criminal, begins going through his neighborhood shooting anyone about whom he has become suspicious, or against whom he has long harbored a grudge. Would your response be to jump on his bandwagon and assist his undertaking, or would you want him confined to some facility that could provide him with a whole lot of couch time?[/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]It is time for sane men and women to put down their flags and begin to recognize the current war-mania not simply as a misguided adventure, but as the collective psychopathic disorder that it has become. When those in power tell us that they are engaged in an endless war against endless enemies, it is time to say "enough!" We have a responsibility to maintain the conditions upon which life may flourish on this planet, not to follow the madness of those who have no greater vision than to commit all of mankind to a state of universal and eternal warfare in furtherance of their delusions. It is time for intelligence and human decency to transcend the frenzied jingoism now prevailing upon the land, and for intellectual honesty to expose the schemes of those who conspire against life itself[/size]


met vriendelijke groeten

Pindarrrrr[edit]
[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by Pindar on 13-07-2005 at 16:44
Reason:
--------------------------------

en lees nu dit:

[size=3][size=6]Will the Real Paranoids Please Raise Their Hands?[/size][/size]

[size=3]When one dares to dig beneath the surface of governmental programs to reveal undisclosed purposes, he or she is usually met with charges of being a "paranoid" defender of "conspiracy theories." [/size]

[size=3][/size]

[size=3]More often than not, such an accusation silences the questioner, as it is designed to do.[/size]

[size=3][/size]

[size=3] I long ago came to the conclusion that those who chastise others for spouting "conspiracy theories" tend to do so because they don’t want the implications of their own schemes revealed to the public. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!," intoned the Wizard of Oz, an admonition designed to intimidate the inquisitive into silence.[/size]

[size=3]I, for one, gladly admit to the embracing of any conspiracy theory for which there is credible evidence. [/size]
[size=3][/size]
[size=3]But those who condemn me for my views never seem interested in examining the evidence,[/size]
[size=3][/size]
[size=3] their purposes being more to prevent the raising of discomforting questions. Having read a good deal of history over the years, I ask my critics to account for the countless foreign intrigues, plots, assassinations, alliances, and other cabals that have been at the heart of so much of the history of the world. Do Shakespeare’s tragedies – almost all of which are grounded in conspiracies of one kind or another – have nothing to teach us about the machinations of human behavior? [/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]A Jewish acquaintance once criticized me for my views, adding "there are no conspiracies." "May I quote you on that?," I asked. He could not understand my purpose in wanting to do so, so I told him: "because it’s not often one hears Jewish people denying the Nazi holocaust the way you just did." After advising him that the "Nazi holocaust" requires a conspiracy of German government officials, he was prepared to modify his statement to allow for the kinds of conspiracies that he believed in.[/size][/font]

[size=3]One of my colleagues, who teaches antitrust law, attacked me for defending even the idea of "conspiracies," until I asked him if he intended to reduce his course from three units to one. "Since so much of antitrust law consists of ‘conspiracies’ to restrain trade, or fix prices, or divide up markets, or monopolize an industry, or engage in such more subtle ‘conspiracies’ as ‘conscious parallelism,’ I assume that, since you do not believe in conspiracies, you will take the lead in condemning such specious theories." [/size][/font]

[size=3]Conspiracy theories abound in our society, and are widely accepted, . . . provided you are identifying the "politically correct" conspiracy. [/size]
[size=3][/size]
[size=3]World War II was conducted, in part, on the premise that the so-called "axis powers" were conspiring to take over the world. But if one tries to offer evidence that FDR secretly manipulated the Japanese into an attack on Pearl Harbor in order to serve his political agenda, the "anti-conspiracy league" quickly appears to attack not the evidence, but the state of mind of the accuser. When World War II ended, the "international communist conspiracy" was hurriedly rushed onstage to justify the commitment of trillions of dollars of wealth and hundreds of thousands of lives to fight a "Cold War." When the "Cold War" critics began to speak and write about how this campaign was designed to serve American corporate-state interests at the expense of the American people, the "anti-conspiracy league" was again called into action.[/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]For those who are paying attention, the incongruity of the critics of conspiracy theories should be apparent. "We are busy conducting wars against sinister foreign conspiracies," they might argue, "and anyone who suggests that we might be engaged in conspiracies of our own, are ‘paranoids.’" "They" conspire, in other words, but "we" do not. [/size]
[size=3][/size]
[size=3]A childishly simple explanation for consumption by childishly simple minds.[/size]

[size=3]"Paranoia" consists not in a fear of others, but in a baseless fear. Would one regard a Jew, in Nazi Germany, as "paranoid," because he thought the government was out to do him harm? If so, how would we characterize the state of mind of another Jew, similarly located, who did not see any threat from his government? When one further considers how preoccupied government officials are with protecting themselves from those they imagine themselves to represent– to the point of routinely having bomb-sniffing dogs, armed security guards, and military helicopters and soldiers accompany their public appearances – it should be asked: just who is being "paranoid?" [/size][/font]

[size=3]It is interesting to observe the psychological projection that takes place in such dynamics. [/size]
[size=3][/size]
[size=3]The defenders of statism attack their critics as "paranoids" while, at the same time, fostering an endless supply of "enemies" against whom they promise us protection! Politics thrives on the mobilization of the fear of others. [/size]
[size=3][/size]
[size=3]President Bush’s unilateral declaration of a permanent war against the rest of the world can only be premised upon the most paranoid assumption that everyone else is involved in a conspiracy against American interests![/size]

[size=3]It has always been comforting to most people to imagine, albeit unconsciously, that the "dark side" of their personality – i.e., the capacity for violence, dishonesty, bigotry, etc. – can be severed from themselves and projected onto others, against whom punitive action can then be taken. All that occurs in such behavior, of course, is the punishment of the others who stand in as scapegoats for the feared shortcomings of those engaged in projecting.[/size]
[size=3][/size]
[size=3] This kind of thinking has produced the current Bush-induced mindset [/size]
[size=3][/size]
[size=3]that when America bombs other countries – killing innocent men, women, and children in the process – it is a force for "good" defending "freedom." When these other countries retaliate for such attacks – killing innocent men, women, and children in so doing – they represent the forces of "evil" engaged in "terrorism." [/size]
[size=3][/size]
[size=3]That grown men and women can internalize this kind of playground logic, particularly when the consequences are so deadly, is indeed frightening. [/size]

[size=3]This war – whose name is ever-changing – has moved far beyond simply retaliation against those responsible for attacking the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11th. It has become more of a self-righteous "holy crusade" against nations that are unprepared to acknowledge America as the rightful ruler of the entire world. Neo-conservative zealots have exploited the September 11th tragedy to pursue a much broader agenda of American hegemony. It is no longer sufficient to track down the perpetrators of that attack, the war must be expanded to include nations whose identities seem to have been selected from someone’s Rolodex file of place-names! "Who shall we attack next?" has been the operative question around Washington. After months of bombing Afghanistan, President Bush was quick to declare an "Axis of Evil" as the broader enemy, suggesting that North Korea, Iraq, and Iran were engaged in some conspiracy, apparently of satanic dimensions, against America. Soon, new candidates were offered up for public consumption: the Philippines, Indonesia, Somalia, the Sudan, Colombia, and perhaps other Middle Eastern or African nations. The candidates for inclusion on this list may include anyone unprepared to genuflect before American interests. (The list will presumably not include China, which would likely offer deadly resistance.) [/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]Let us suppose that some criminal has engaged in a violent attack upon your Uncle Willie’s home. Let us suppose, further, that Willie has undertaken a campaign to discover – and bring to account – the perpetrators of this offense. This would be a perfectly rational response on his part, for which the rest of us would likely lend our support. But suppose that Willie goes further than this and, not being able to discover the criminal, begins going through his neighborhood shooting anyone about whom he has become suspicious, or against whom he has long harbored a grudge. Would your response be to jump on his bandwagon and assist his undertaking, or would you want him confined to some facility that could provide him with a whole lot of couch time?[/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]It is time for sane men and women to put down their flags and begin to recognize the current war-mania not simply as a misguided adventure, but as the collective psychopathic disorder that it has become. When those in power tell us that they are engaged in an endless war against endless enemies, it is time to say "enough!" We have a responsibility to maintain the conditions upon which life may flourish on this planet, not to follow the madness of those who have no greater vision than to commit all of mankind to a state of universal and eternal warfare in furtherance of their delusions. It is time for intelligence and human decency to transcend the frenzied jingoism now prevailing upon the land, and for intellectual honesty to expose the schemes of those who conspire against life itself[/size]


met vriendelijke groeten

Pindarrrrr[/size]

[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by Pindar on 13-07-2005 at 16:41
Reason:
--------------------------------

en lees nu dit:

[size=3][size=6]Will the Real Paranoids Please Raise Their Hands?[/size][/font][/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]When one dares to dig beneath the surface of governmental programs to reveal undisclosed purposes, he or she is usually met with charges of being a "paranoid" defender of "conspiracy theories." More often than not, such an accusation silences the questioner, as it is designed to do. I long ago came to the conclusion that those who chastise others for spouting "conspiracy theories" tend to do so because they don’t want the implications of their own schemes revealed to the public. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!," intoned the Wizard of Oz, an admonition designed to intimidate the inquisitive into silence.[/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]I, for one, gladly admit to the embracing of any conspiracy theory for which there is credible evidence. But those who condemn me for my views never seem interested in examining the evidence, their purposes being more to prevent the raising of discomforting questions. Having read a good deal of history over the years, I ask my critics to account for the countless foreign intrigues, plots, assassinations, alliances, and other cabals that have been at the heart of so much of the history of the world. Do Shakespeare’s tragedies – almost all of which are grounded in conspiracies of one kind or another – have nothing to teach us about the machinations of human behavior? [/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]A Jewish acquaintance once criticized me for my views, adding "there are no conspiracies." "May I quote you on that?," I asked. He could not understand my purpose in wanting to do so, so I told him: "because it’s not often one hears Jewish people denying the Nazi holocaust the way you just did." After advising him that the "Nazi holocaust" requires a conspiracy of German government officials, he was prepared to modify his statement to allow for the kinds of conspiracies that he believed in.[/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]One of my colleagues, who teaches antitrust law, attacked me for defending even the idea of "conspiracies," until I asked him if he intended to reduce his course from three units to one. "Since so much of antitrust law consists of ‘conspiracies’ to restrain trade, or fix prices, or divide up markets, or monopolize an industry, or engage in such more subtle ‘conspiracies’ as ‘conscious parallelism,’ I assume that, since you do not believe in conspiracies, you will take the lead in condemning such specious theories." [/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]Conspiracy theories abound in our society, and are widely accepted, . . . provided you are identifying the "politically correct" conspiracy. World War II was conducted, in part, on the premise that the so-called "axis powers" were conspiring to take over the world. But if one tries to offer evidence that FDR secretly manipulated the Japanese into an attack on Pearl Harbor in order to serve his political agenda, the "anti-conspiracy league" quickly appears to attack not the evidence, but the state of mind of the accuser. When World War II ended, the "international communist conspiracy" was hurriedly rushed onstage to justify the commitment of trillions of dollars of wealth and hundreds of thousands of lives to fight a "Cold War." When the "Cold War" critics began to speak and write about how this campaign was designed to serve American corporate-state interests at the expense of the American people, the "anti-conspiracy league" was again called into action.[/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]For those who are paying attention, the incongruity of the critics of conspiracy theories should be apparent. "We are busy conducting wars against sinister foreign conspiracies," they might argue, "and anyone who suggests that we might be engaged in conspiracies of our own, are ‘paranoids.’" "They" conspire, in other words, but "we" do not. A childishly simple explanation for consumption by childishly simple minds.[/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]"Paranoia" consists not in a fear of others, but in a baseless fear. Would one regard a Jew, in Nazi Germany, as "paranoid," because he thought the government was out to do him harm? If so, how would we characterize the state of mind of another Jew, similarly located, who did not see any threat from his government? When one further considers how preoccupied government officials are with protecting themselves from those they imagine themselves to represent– to the point of routinely having bomb-sniffing dogs, armed security guards, and military helicopters and soldiers accompany their public appearances – it should be asked: just who is being "paranoid?" [/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]It is interesting to observe the psychological projection that takes place in such dynamics. The defenders of statism attack their critics as "paranoids" while, at the same time, fostering an endless supply of "enemies" against whom they promise us protection! Politics thrives on the mobilization of the fear of others. President Bush’s unilateral declaration of a permanent war against the rest of the world can only be premised upon the most paranoid assumption that everyone else is involved in a conspiracy against American interests![/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]It has always been comforting to most people to imagine, albeit unconsciously, that the "dark side" of their personality – i.e., the capacity for violence, dishonesty, bigotry, etc. – can be severed from themselves and projected onto others, against whom punitive action can then be taken. All that occurs in such behavior, of course, is the punishment of the others who stand in as scapegoats for the feared shortcomings of those engaged in projecting. This kind of thinking has produced the current Bush-induced mindset that when America bombs other countries – killing innocent men, women, and children in the process – it is a force for "good" defending "freedom." When these other countries retaliate for such attacks – killing innocent men, women, and children in so doing – they represent the forces of "evil" engaged in "terrorism." That grown men and women can internalize this kind of playground logic, particularly when the consequences are so deadly, is indeed frightening. [/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]This war – whose name is ever-changing – has moved far beyond simply retaliation against those responsible for attacking the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11th. It has become more of a self-righteous "holy crusade" against nations that are unprepared to acknowledge America as the rightful ruler of the entire world. Neo-conservative zealots have exploited the September 11th tragedy to pursue a much broader agenda of American hegemony. It is no longer sufficient to track down the perpetrators of that attack, the war must be expanded to include nations whose identities seem to have been selected from someone’s Rolodex file of place-names! "Who shall we attack next?" has been the operative question around Washington. After months of bombing Afghanistan, President Bush was quick to declare an "Axis of Evil" as the broader enemy, suggesting that North Korea, Iraq, and Iran were engaged in some conspiracy, apparently of satanic dimensions, against America. Soon, new candidates were offered up for public consumption: the Philippines, Indonesia, Somalia, the Sudan, Colombia, and perhaps other Middle Eastern or African nations. The candidates for inclusion on this list may include anyone unprepared to genuflect before American interests. (The list will presumably not include China, which would likely offer deadly resistance.) [/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]Let us suppose that some criminal has engaged in a violent attack upon your Uncle Willie’s home. Let us suppose, further, that Willie has undertaken a campaign to discover – and bring to account – the perpetrators of this offense. This would be a perfectly rational response on his part, for which the rest of us would likely lend our support. But suppose that Willie goes further than this and, not being able to discover the criminal, begins going through his neighborhood shooting anyone about whom he has become suspicious, or against whom he has long harbored a grudge. Would your response be to jump on his bandwagon and assist his undertaking, or would you want him confined to some facility that could provide him with a whole lot of couch time?[/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]It is time for sane men and women to put down their flags and begin to recognize the current war-mania not simply as a misguided adventure, but as the collective psychopathic disorder that it has become. When those in power tell us that they are engaged in an endless war against endless enemies, it is time to say "enough!" We have a responsibility to maintain the conditions upon which life may flourish on this planet, not to follow the madness of those who have no greater vision than to commit all of mankind to a state of universal and eternal warfare in furtherance of their delusions. It is time for intelligence and human decency to transcend the frenzied jingoism now prevailing upon the land, and for intellectual honesty to expose the schemes of those who conspire against life itself[/size]


met vriendelijke groeten

Pindarrrrr[/size]

[size=1]Before any edits, post was:
--------------------------------

en lees nu dit:

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3][font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=6]Will the Real Paranoids Please Raise Their Hands?[/size][/font][/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]When one dares to dig beneath the surface of governmental programs to reveal undisclosed purposes, he or she is usually met with charges of being a "paranoid" defender of "conspiracy theories." More often than not, such an accusation silences the questioner, as it is designed to do. I long ago came to the conclusion that those who chastise others for spouting "conspiracy theories" tend to do so because they don’t want the implications of their own schemes revealed to the public. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!," intoned the Wizard of Oz, an admonition designed to intimidate the inquisitive into silence.[/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]I, for one, gladly admit to the embracing of any conspiracy theory for which there is credible evidence. But those who condemn me for my views never seem interested in examining the evidence, their purposes being more to prevent the raising of discomforting questions. Having read a good deal of history over the years, I ask my critics to account for the countless foreign intrigues, plots, assassinations, alliances, and other cabals that have been at the heart of so much of the history of the world. Do Shakespeare’s tragedies – almost all of which are grounded in conspiracies of one kind or another – have nothing to teach us about the machinations of human behavior? [/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]A Jewish acquaintance once criticized me for my views, adding "there are no conspiracies." "May I quote you on that?," I asked. He could not understand my purpose in wanting to do so, so I told him: "because it’s not often one hears Jewish people denying the Nazi holocaust the way you just did." After advising him that the "Nazi holocaust" requires a conspiracy of German government officials, he was prepared to modify his statement to allow for the kinds of conspiracies that he believed in.[/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]One of my colleagues, who teaches antitrust law, attacked me for defending even the idea of "conspiracies," until I asked him if he intended to reduce his course from three units to one. "Since so much of antitrust law consists of ‘conspiracies’ to restrain trade, or fix prices, or divide up markets, or monopolize an industry, or engage in such more subtle ‘conspiracies’ as ‘conscious parallelism,’ I assume that, since you do not believe in conspiracies, you will take the lead in condemning such specious theories." [/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]Conspiracy theories abound in our society, and are widely accepted, . . . provided you are identifying the "politically correct" conspiracy. World War II was conducted, in part, on the premise that the so-called "axis powers" were conspiring to take over the world. But if one tries to offer evidence that FDR secretly manipulated the Japanese into an attack on Pearl Harbor in order to serve his political agenda, the "anti-conspiracy league" quickly appears to attack not the evidence, but the state of mind of the accuser. When World War II ended, the "international communist conspiracy" was hurriedly rushed onstage to justify the commitment of trillions of dollars of wealth and hundreds of thousands of lives to fight a "Cold War." When the "Cold War" critics began to speak and write about how this campaign was designed to serve American corporate-state interests at the expense of the American people, the "anti-conspiracy league" was again called into action.[/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]For those who are paying attention, the incongruity of the critics of conspiracy theories should be apparent. "We are busy conducting wars against sinister foreign conspiracies," they might argue, "and anyone who suggests that we might be engaged in conspiracies of our own, are ‘paranoids.’" "They" conspire, in other words, but "we" do not. A childishly simple explanation for consumption by childishly simple minds.[/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]"Paranoia" consists not in a fear of others, but in a baseless fear. Would one regard a Jew, in Nazi Germany, as "paranoid," because he thought the government was out to do him harm? If so, how would we characterize the state of mind of another Jew, similarly located, who did not see any threat from his government? When one further considers how preoccupied government officials are with protecting themselves from those they imagine themselves to represent– to the point of routinely having bomb-sniffing dogs, armed security guards, and military helicopters and soldiers accompany their public appearances – it should be asked: just who is being "paranoid?" [/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]It is interesting to observe the psychological projection that takes place in such dynamics. The defenders of statism attack their critics as "paranoids" while, at the same time, fostering an endless supply of "enemies" against whom they promise us protection! Politics thrives on the mobilization of the fear of others. President Bush’s unilateral declaration of a permanent war against the rest of the world can only be premised upon the most paranoid assumption that everyone else is involved in a conspiracy against American interests![/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]It has always been comforting to most people to imagine, albeit unconsciously, that the "dark side" of their personality – i.e., the capacity for violence, dishonesty, bigotry, etc. – can be severed from themselves and projected onto others, against whom punitive action can then be taken. All that occurs in such behavior, of course, is the punishment of the others who stand in as scapegoats for the feared shortcomings of those engaged in projecting. This kind of thinking has produced the current Bush-induced mindset that when America bombs other countries – killing innocent men, women, and children in the process – it is a force for "good" defending "freedom." When these other countries retaliate for such attacks – killing innocent men, women, and children in so doing – they represent the forces of "evil" engaged in "terrorism." That grown men and women can internalize this kind of playground logic, particularly when the consequences are so deadly, is indeed frightening. [/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]This war – whose name is ever-changing – has moved far beyond simply retaliation against those responsible for attacking the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11th. It has become more of a self-righteous "holy crusade" against nations that are unprepared to acknowledge America as the rightful ruler of the entire world. Neo-conservative zealots have exploited the September 11th tragedy to pursue a much broader agenda of American hegemony. It is no longer sufficient to track down the perpetrators of that attack, the war must be expanded to include nations whose identities seem to have been selected from someone’s Rolodex file of place-names! "Who shall we attack next?" has been the operative question around Washington. After months of bombing Afghanistan, President Bush was quick to declare an "Axis of Evil" as the broader enemy, suggesting that North Korea, Iraq, and Iran were engaged in some conspiracy, apparently of satanic dimensions, against America. Soon, new candidates were offered up for public consumption: the Philippines, Indonesia, Somalia, the Sudan, Colombia, and perhaps other Middle Eastern or African nations. The candidates for inclusion on this list may include anyone unprepared to genuflect before American interests. (The list will presumably not include China, which would likely offer deadly resistance.) [/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]Let us suppose that some criminal has engaged in a violent attack upon your Uncle Willie’s home. Let us suppose, further, that Willie has undertaken a campaign to discover – and bring to account – the perpetrators of this offense. This would be a perfectly rational response on his part, for which the rest of us would likely lend our support. But suppose that Willie goes further than this and, not being able to discover the criminal, begins going through his neighborhood shooting anyone about whom he has become suspicious, or against whom he has long harbored a grudge. Would your response be to jump on his bandwagon and assist his undertaking, or would you want him confined to some facility that could provide him with a whole lot of couch time?[/size][/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif][size=3]It is time for sane men and women to put down their flags and begin to recognize the current war-mania not simply as a misguided adventure, but as the collective psychopathic disorder that it has become. When those in power tell us that they are engaged in an endless war against endless enemies, it is time to say "enough!" We have a responsibility to maintain the conditions upon which life may flourish on this planet, not to follow the madness of those who have no greater vision than to commit all of mankind to a state of universal and eternal warfare in furtherance of their delusions. It is time for intelligence and human decency to transcend the frenzied jingoism now prevailing upon the land, and for intellectual honesty to expose the schemes of those who conspire against life itself.[/size][/font]

met vriendelijke groeten

Pindarrrrr[/size]

[/edit]

[Pascal L.]

Hieronder een goed commentaar artikel op deze thread

The Jews
War and a sickness.

It was widely noted, most passionately by the Iraqi blogger Hammorabi, that when Tony Blair reminded the House of Commons that many countries had been scourged by the terrorists in recent years, he omitted Iraq from the list. His speechwriters had Iraq in a different part of their database; Iraqis weren't victims of terrorism in the same way as Brits, Americans, Kenyans, and Indonesians. One's instinct is to let it go as an oversight, but there was another country missing from the list, and this case was somewhat less widely noted: Israel. And at this point, one is forced to do some thinking. What do these two countries have in common, that they should both be ignored in the British government's response to the London attacks?
Iraq and Israel are arguably the two major victims of Islamic terrorism. Yet they did not come to Blair's mind. Or maybe they did, and maybe there was a reason they were omitted.

In the growing recent literature about Great Britain's appeasement of Islamic terrorists over the past decade and more, we've come to understand that London was, in many ways, the epicenter of the terror network. Terrorists wanted in other countries were given safe haven in the United Kingdom, and the most amazingly hateful language was spewed out, openly and proudly, by various sheikhs and imams, all left to incite the faithful to terrible acts against innocent people the world over. For all this, her majesty's government had its reasons. There was a reluctance to offend "the Arabs," the richest of whom had long used London as a home away from the sand, and as their financial and banking center of choice. Moreover, there was a traditional disdain of the Arabs, born out of long experience and expressed in open doubt that "those people" would ever constitute a serious threat, or indeed anything serious. Further, there was a long tradition of open and boisterous political speech, which reflexively protected even terrorist preachers from official rebuke or punishment. To these traditions, there was the usual deadly overlay of political correctness, what Mark Steyn calls the multiculti view, according to which people with traditions different from ours should be respected and certainly not silenced. To do that would not only be non-multiculti, it would risk the advantages of the special relationship with the Arab world.



Those of us who have had the frustrating experience of speaking with British diplomats (or journalists, especially those elegantly speaking fellows from the BBC) about the Middle East have invariably encountered a dismissive, slightly bemused, and firm conviction that anyone who worries greatly about "the Arabs" is at least ignorant and at worst malignant. And those of us who had the gall to argue — publicly, even — that the terror war is indeed serious and that appeasement of Saudis, Syrians, and Iranians would only lead to more and more terrible actions against us all, were relegated to the category of misguided souls, at best.

The Neocons!

The final component of British blindness on the subject of the Middle East is one we are not supposed to talk about in good company: the Jews. Yet I don't know any country this side of the Levant in which there has been so much anti-Semitism, so many complaints that "Zionists," "Likudniks," "Jewish hawks," and — the single epithet that sums up all of the above — "neocons" had manipulated America and its poodle Blair into the ghastly blunder of Iraq. The BBC has devoted hours of radio and television to slanderous misrepresentations of places like the American Enterprise Institute, where I sit, and of such Jewish luminaries as Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, and Paul Wolfowitz. Sometimes it seemed one was reading translations from the Saudi or Egyptian or Iranian press, so total was the hatred of the Jews.


This fit nicely with the desire of the British establishment to carry on their special relationship with some Arab leaders, and many British elites often seemed a micro-step away from saying that the world would be a better place if only Israel weren't there. The Middle East would be so much easier, you know. And when London was bombed, you can be sure — indeed you can read it — many of these people blamed Israel and the Jews, both those in the Middle East and those in New York and Washington. Indeed, within minutes of the attack, a story appeared according to which the Israelis had advance notice, and had instructed Finance Minister Netanyahu to stay put, instead of going to give a speech. The story was as false as the one according to which Israelis had stayed away from the World Trade Center on 9/11, but they both reflected a state of mind. An anti-Semitic mind.

All too many Brits (as some Americans, albeit far fewer) would prefer to devote their national energies to the elimination or "taming" of Israel, and, as they see it, the silencing of their own Jews, rather than fighting Islamic terrorism. Combined with the desire to keep Arab money in London and special access for British businessmen and diplomats and scholars in the Arab world, it explains why HMG gave sanctuary and indeed benevolent assistance to the jihadis in their HMG midst.



Iraqis — the New Jews?

And so Israel was not on the prime minister's list. What about Iraq?


The Iraqis are viewed much the same way, and are at some risk of becoming the new Jews of the Middle East. In the enormous hate literature directed against the neocons, Ahmed Chalabi is part and parcel of the anti-Semites' hateful vision. No matter that he is a Shiite, and no matter that he was rudely dismissed by the Israeli government before Operation Iraqi Freedom. He was in cahoots with the Jewish cabal, and was therefore "one of them." And as Chalabi, so the rest of the lot. Anyone looking honestly at Iraq today would have to be filled with admiration for the enormous dignity and courage with which the Iraqis have reacted to the barbaric savagery to which they have been subjected. Ministers are killed, leaders of civil society are kidnapped and beheaded, independent thinkers are intimidated, yet others come forward to fight for their national independence and integrity. When is the last time you read anything, anywhere (with all too few exceptions — like Arthur Chrenkoff's "good news" beat), celebrating these rare qualities of spirit? And this question goes hand in hand with its twin: When is the last time you read anything about the incredible performance of the State of Israel, similarly under siege and similarly stressed by the crisis that surrounds it?

It is therefore not surprising that Iraq and Israel were omitted from Blair's list; it is a symptom of the corrupt and self-destructive patterns of emotion (I will not call it "thought") that led Great Britain to house a vast terrorist infrastructure.

This sickness is certainly not limited to Great Britain; we find it here as well, in such personages as Pat Buchanan and Juan Cole, along with their acolytes. But in America, by and large, such venom is relegated to the margins, probably because American Jews are a lot feistier than their British co-religionaries (think timid). We do, however, run a risk similar to the British: We, too, are unconscionably passive in the face of radical Muslim religious indoctrination that is designed to produce a new wave of terrorists. I wrote about this many years ago, as have, notably, Daniel Pipes and Steve Emerson, and predicted that of all the problems we faced in the war against the terror masters, this would prove the most intractable.

And so it is. The absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment — free speech extends even to license — stops us from taking proper steps to shut down the terror factories. Justice Holmes taught us that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and that no one has the right to scream "fire" in a crowded theater. London taught us that these principles require vigorous application.

Faster, please.

— Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. He is resident scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute.

http://nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200507130823.asp[edit]
[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by Pascal L. on 13-07-2005 at 17:01
Reason:
--------------------------------

Hieronder een goed commentaar artikel op deze thread

The Jews
War and a sickness.

It was widely noted, most passionately by the Iraqi blogger Hammorabi, that when Tony Blair reminded the House of Commons that many countries had been scourged by the terrorists in recent years, he omitted Iraq from the list. His speechwriters had Iraq in a different part of their database; Iraqis weren't victims of terrorism in the same way as Brits, Americans, Kenyans, and Indonesians. One's instinct is to let it go as an oversight, but there was another country missing from the list, and this case was somewhat less widely noted: Israel. And at this point, one is forced to do some thinking. What do these two countries have in common, that they should both be ignored in the British government's response to the London attacks?
Iraq and Israel are arguably the two major victims of Islamic terrorism. Yet they did not come to Blair's mind. Or maybe they did, and maybe there was a reason they were omitted.

In the growing recent literature about Great Britain's appeasement of Islamic terrorists over the past decade and more, we've come to understand that London was, in many ways, the epicenter of the terror network. Terrorists wanted in other countries were given safe haven in the United Kingdom, and the most amazingly hateful language was spewed out, openly and proudly, by various sheikhs and imams, all left to incite the faithful to terrible acts against innocent people the world over. For all this, her majesty's government had its reasons. There was a reluctance to offend "the Arabs," the richest of whom had long used London as a home away from the sand, and as their financial and banking center of choice. Moreover, there was a traditional disdain of the Arabs, born out of long experience and expressed in open doubt that "those people" would ever constitute a serious threat, or indeed anything serious. Further, there was a long tradition of open and boisterous political speech, which reflexively protected even terrorist preachers from official rebuke or punishment. To these traditions, there was the usual deadly overlay of political correctness, what Mark Steyn calls the multiculti view, according to which people with traditions different from ours should be respected and certainly not silenced. To do that would not only be non-multiculti, it would risk the advantages of the special relationship with the Arab world.



Those of us who have had the frustrating experience of speaking with British diplomats (or journalists, especially those elegantly speaking fellows from the BBC) about the Middle East have invariably encountered a dismissive, slightly bemused, and firm conviction that anyone who worries greatly about "the Arabs" is at least ignorant and at worst malignant. And those of us who had the gall to argue — publicly, even — that the terror war is indeed serious and that appeasement of Saudis, Syrians, and Iranians would only lead to more and more terrible actions against us all, were relegated to the category of misguided souls, at best.

The Neocons!

The final component of British blindness on the subject of the Middle East is one we are not supposed to talk about in good company: the Jews. Yet I don't know any country this side of the Levant in which there has been so much anti-Semitism, so many complaints that "Zionists," "Likudniks," "Jewish hawks," and — the single epithet that sums up all of the above — "neocons" had manipulated America and its poodle Blair into the ghastly blunder of Iraq. The BBC has devoted hours of radio and television to slanderous misrepresentations of places like the American Enterprise Institute, where I sit, and of such Jewish luminaries as Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, and Paul Wolfowitz. Sometimes it seemed one was reading translations from the Saudi or Egyptian or Iranian press, so total was the hatred of the Jews.


This fit nicely with the desire of the British establishment to carry on their special relationship with some Arab leaders, and many British elites often seemed a micro-step away from saying that the world would be a better place if only Israel weren't there. The Middle East would be so much easier, you know. And when London was bombed, you can be sure — indeed you can read it — many of these people blamed Israel and the Jews, both those in the Middle East and those in New York and Washington. Indeed, within minutes of the attack, a story appeared according to which the Israelis had advance notice, and had instructed Finance Minister Netanyahu to stay put, instead of going to give a speech. The story was as false as the one according to which Israelis had stayed away from the World Trade Center on 9/11, but they both reflected a state of mind. An anti-Semitic mind.

All too many Brits (as some Americans, albeit far fewer) would prefer to devote their national energies to the elimination or "taming" of Israel, and, as they see it, the silencing of their own Jews, rather than fighting Islamic terrorism. Combined with the desire to keep Arab money in London and special access for British businessmen and diplomats and scholars in the Arab world, it explains why HMG gave sanctuary and indeed benevolent assistance to the jihadis in their HMG midst.



Iraqis — the New Jews?

And so Israel was not on the prime minister's list. What about Iraq?


The Iraqis are viewed much the same way, and are at some risk of becoming the new Jews of the Middle East. In the enormous hate literature directed against the neocons, Ahmed Chalabi is part and parcel of the anti-Semites' hateful vision. No matter that he is a Shiite, and no matter that he was rudely dismissed by the Israeli government before Operation Iraqi Freedom. He was in cahoots with the Jewish cabal, and was therefore "one of them." And as Chalabi, so the rest of the lot. Anyone looking honestly at Iraq today would have to be filled with admiration for the enormous dignity and courage with which the Iraqis have reacted to the barbaric savagery to which they have been subjected. Ministers are killed, leaders of civil society are kidnapped and beheaded, independent thinkers are intimidated, yet others come forward to fight for their national independence and integrity. When is the last time you read anything, anywhere (with all too few exceptions — like Arthur Chrenkoff's "good news" beat), celebrating these rare qualities of spirit? And this question goes hand in hand with its twin: When is the last time you read anything about the incredible performance of the State of Israel, similarly under siege and similarly stressed by the crisis that surrounds it?

It is therefore not surprising that Iraq and Israel were omitted from Blair's list; it is a symptom of the corrupt and self-destructive patterns of emotion (I will not call it "thought") that led Great Britain to house a vast terrorist infrastructure.

This sickness is certainly not limited to Great Britain; we find it here as well, in such personages as Pat Buchanan and Juan Cole, along with their acolytes. But in America, by and large, such venom is relegated to the margins, probably because American Jews are a lot feistier than their British co-religionaries (think timid). We do, however, run a risk similar to the British: We, too, are unconscionably passive in the face of radical Muslim religious indoctrination that is designed to produce a new wave of terrorists. I wrote about this many years ago, as have, notably, Daniel Pipes and Steve Emerson, and predicted that of all the problems we faced in the war against the terror masters, this would prove the most intractable.

And so it is. The absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment — free speech extends even to license — stops us from taking proper steps to shut down the terror factories. Justice Holmes taught us that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and that no one has the right to scream "fire" in a crowded theater. London taught us that these principles require vigorous application.

Faster, please.

— Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. He is resident scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute.

http://nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200507130823.asp[/size]

[size=1]Before any edits, post was:
--------------------------------

Hieronder een goed commentaar artikel op deze thread

The Jews
War and a sickness.

It was widely noted, most passionately by the Iraqi blogger Hammorabi, that when Tony Blair reminded the House of Commons that many countries had been scourged by the terrorists in recent years, he omitted Iraq from the list. His speechwriters had Iraq in a different part of their database; Iraqis weren't victims of terrorism in the same way as Brits, Americans, Kenyans, and Indonesians. One's instinct is to let it go as an oversight, but there was another country missing from the list, and this case was somewhat less widely noted: Israel. And at this point, one is forced to do some thinking. What do these two countries have in common, that they should both be ignored in the British government's response to the London attacks?
Iraq and Israel are arguably the two major victims of Islamic terrorism. Yet they did not come to Blair's mind. Or maybe they did, and maybe there was a reason they were omitted.

In the growing recent literature about Great Britain's appeasement of Islamic terrorists over the past decade and more, we've come to understand that London was, in many ways, the epicenter of the terror network. Terrorists wanted in other countries were given safe haven in the United Kingdom, and the most amazingly hateful language was spewed out, openly and proudly, by various sheikhs and imams, all left to incite the faithful to terrible acts against innocent people the world over. For all this, her majesty's government had its reasons. There was a reluctance to offend "the Arabs," the richest of whom had long used London as a home away from the sand, and as their financial and banking center of choice. Moreover, there was a traditional disdain of the Arabs, born out of long experience and expressed in open doubt that "those people" would ever constitute a serious threat, or indeed anything serious. Further, there was a long tradition of open and boisterous political speech, which reflexively protected even terrorist preachers from official rebuke or punishment. To these traditions, there was the usual deadly overlay of political correctness, what Mark Steyn calls the multiculti view, according to which people with traditions different from ours should be respected and certainly not silenced. To do that would not only be non-multiculti, it would risk the advantages of the special relationship with the Arab world.



Those of us who have had the frustrating experience of speaking with British diplomats (or journalists, especially those elegantly speaking fellows from the BBC) about the Middle East have invariably encountered a dismissive, slightly bemused, and firm conviction that anyone who worries greatly about "the Arabs" is at least ignorant and at worst malignant. And those of us who had the gall to argue — publicly, even — that the terror war is indeed serious and that appeasement of Saudis, Syrians, and Iranians would only lead to more and more terrible actions against us all, were relegated to the category of misguided souls, at best.

The Neocons!

The final component of British blindness on the subject of the Middle East is one we are not supposed to talk about in good company: the Jews. Yet I don't know any country this side of the Levant in which there has been so much anti-Semitism, so many complaints that "Zionists," "Likudniks," "Jewish hawks," and — the single epithet that sums up all of the above — "neocons" had manipulated America and its poodle Blair into the ghastly blunder of Iraq. The BBC has devoted hours of radio and television to slanderous misrepresentations of places like the American Enterprise Institute, where I sit, and of such Jewish luminaries as Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, and Paul Wolfowitz. Sometimes it seemed one was reading translations from the Saudi or Egyptian or Iranian press, so total was the hatred of the Jews.


This fit nicely with the desire of the British establishment to carry on their special relationship with some Arab leaders, and many British elites often seemed a micro-step away from saying that the world would be a better place if only Israel weren't there. The Middle East would be so much easier, you know. And when London was bombed, you can be sure — indeed you can read it — many of these people blamed Israel and the Jews, both those in the Middle East and those in New York and Washington. Indeed, within minutes of the attack, a story appeared according to which the Israelis had advance notice, and had instructed Finance Minister Netanyahu to stay put, instead of going to give a speech. The story was as false as the one according to which Israelis had stayed away from the World Trade Center on 9/11, but they both reflected a state of mind. An anti-Semitic mind.

All too many Brits (as some Americans, albeit far fewer) would prefer to devote their national energies to the elimination or "taming" of Israel, and, as they see it, the silencing of their own Jews, rather than fighting Islamic terrorism. Combined with the desire to keep Arab money in London and special access for British businessmen and diplomats and scholars in the Arab world, it explains why HMG gave sanctuary and indeed benevolent assistance to the jihadis in their HMG midst.



Iraqis — the New Jews?

And so Israel was not on the prime minister's list. What about Iraq?


The Iraqis are viewed much the same way, and are at some risk of becoming the new Jews of the Middle East. In the enormous hate literature directed against the neocons, Ahmed Chalabi is part and parcel of the anti-Semites' hateful vision. No matter that he is a Shiite, and no matter that he was rudely dismissed by the Israeli government before Operation Iraqi Freedom. He was in cahoots with the Jewish cabal, and was therefore "one of them." And as Chalabi, so the rest of the lot. Anyone looking honestly at Iraq today would have to be filled with admiration for the enormous dignity and courage with which the Iraqis have reacted to the barbaric savagery to which they have been subjected. Ministers are killed, leaders of civil society are kidnapped and beheaded, independent thinkers are intimidated, yet others come forward to fight for their national independence and integrity. When is the last time you read anything, anywhere (with all too few exceptions — like Arthur Chrenkoff's "good news" beat), celebrating these rare qualities of spirit? And this question goes hand in hand with its twin: When is the last time you read anything about the incredible performance of the State of Israel, similarly under siege and similarly stressed by the crisis that surrounds it?

It is therefore not surprising that Iraq and Israel were omitted from Blair's list; it is a symptom of the corrupt and self-destructive patterns of emotion (I will not call it "thought") that led Great Britain to house a vast terrorist infrastructure.

This sickness is certainly not limited to Great Britain; we find it here as well, in such personages as Pat Buchanan and Juan Cole, along with their acolytes. But in America, by and large, such venom is relegated to the margins, probably because American Jews are a lot feistier than their British co-religionaries (think timid). We do, however, run a risk similar to the British: We, too, are unconscionably passive in the face of radical Muslim religious indoctrination that is designed to produce a new wave of terrorists. I wrote about this many years ago, as have, notably, Daniel Pipes and Steve Emerson, and predicted that of all the problems we faced in the war against the terror masters, this would prove the most intractable.

And so it is. The absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment — free speech extends even to license — stops us from taking proper steps to shut down the terror factories. Justice Holmes taught us that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and that no one has the right to scream "fire" in a crowded theater. London taught us that these principles require vigorous application.

Faster, please.

— Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. He is resident scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute.[/size]

[/edit]

[exodus]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pindar

[size=3]It is time for sane men and women to put down their flags and begin to recognize the current war-mania not simply as a misguided adventure, but as the collective psychopathic disorder that it has become. When those in power tell us that they are engaged in an endless war against endless enemies, it is time to say "enough!" We have a responsibility to maintain the conditions upon which life may flourish on this planet, not to follow the madness of those who have no greater vision than to commit all of mankind to a state of universal and eternal warfare in furtherance of their delusions. It is time for intelligence and human decency to transcend the frenzied jingoism now prevailing upon the land, and for intellectual honesty to expose the schemes of those who conspire against life itself[/size]

Zeer juist!! Sterke tekst!! Mensen gebruik uw [size=6]VERSTAND[/size].

[Salmon L.A.]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Breydel

U hebt inderdaad een serieus punt. De enigste die belang hebben bij zulke aanslagen zijn effectief de zionistische identiteit en de V.S.A. Door de aanslagen zullen de Britten sneller geneigd zijn om met een nieuwe golfoorlog tegen Iran in te stemmen. De Yankee-crimineel Bush stond de dag na de aanslag al volop te verkondigen dat de "war on terror" voortgezet wordt en we weten allen wat daar méé bedoeld wordt.

Voil�*, dat soort gezwets krijg je als de nazi's mogen meepraten onder het mom "vrije meningsuiting".

[Salmon L.A.]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door /\|cazar

Bewijzen dat die beelden ...
Ik heb ze gezien, een Russische vriend van me probeert het origineel beeldmateriaal in de States vast te krijgen via het tv station, is niet simpel, hij is maar een armtierige freelancer ... maar intellectueel geweldig scherp.
Komt in orde.
Ik heb bovendien geen 33 videorecorders die dag en nacht alles opnemen om in geval van uiterste nood er een copij van op het net te kunne zetten ...

Toch wel een beetje intellectueel eerlijk blijven he firestone, er zijn een pak mensen die die beelden gezien hebben, alleen weet ik begot niet of ze op het net staan, als ze al digitaal gemaakt zijn ...

Als u zo'n bewijs zoekt, begin dan maar aan uzelf te twijfel.

Ik weet wat /\ bedoelt: er zijn vlak na de aanslagen op 9/11 beelden getoond van dansende en juichende Palestijnen!
En vermits die Palestijnen iets met Israël en de Joden te maken hebben is het geheugen van /\ en zijn Russisch vriendje een beetje vertroebeld geraakt.[edit]
[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by Salmon L.A. on 13-07-2005 at 23:36
Reason:
--------------------------------

Ik weet wat /\ bedoelt: er zijn vlak na de aanslagen op 9/11 beelden getoond van dansende en juichende Palestijnen!
En vermits die Palestijnen iets met Israël en de Joden te maken hebben is het geheugen van /\ en zijn Russisch vriendje een beetje vertroebeld geraakt.[/size]

[size=1]Before any edits, post was:
--------------------------------

Ik weet wat /\ bedoelt: er zijn vlak na de aanslagen op 9/11 beelden getoond van dansende en juichende Palestijnen!
En vermits die Palestijnen iets met Israël en de Joden te maken hebben is het geugen van /\ en zijn Russisch vriendje een beetje vertroebeld geraakt.[/size]

[/edit]

[Firestone]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door exodus

Zeer juist!! Sterke tekst!! Mensen gebruik uw [size=6]VERSTAND[/size].

Waarom?
Jij doet dat toch ook niet.

Jij weet al van tevoren dat alles kadert in het master plan van de illuminati.
Wat er ook moge gebeuren, oorlog, vrede, aanslagen, peak oil, geen peak oil, sterke VN, zwakke VN, sterke EU, zwakke EU, vrede tussen Israëli's en Palestijnen, oorlog tussen Israëli's en Palestijnen,...
Altijd deel van het master plan.

Geen verstand nodig, alléén geloof.
En zeker geen logica of feitenkennis.

[Salmon L.A.]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door /\|cazar

artikeltje lezen

spy ring

waren op de hoogte

filmpke gemaakt om later op klaar te kunnen komen


wereldbrandje stichten

groot israel

...

en nu ga ik slapen.

Uw roes intussen uitgeslapen?

[willem1940NLD]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Salmon L.A.

Ik weet wat /\ bedoelt: er zijn vlak na de aanslagen op 9/11 beelden getoond van dansende en juichende Palestijnen!
En vermits die Palestijnen iets met Israël en de Joden te maken hebben is het geugen van /\ en zijn Russisch vriendje een beetje vertroebeld geraakt.

Nee, ik denk niet dat zoiets bedoeld werd (hoewel parallelle manifestaties ook in Nederland uitgebreid aan de orde kwamen).

Het aangehaalde krant-verhaal is minstens merkwaardig te noemen maar ik weet niet in hoever zaken langs officiële wegen (kunnen) worden nagetrokken en evenmin ken ik de "klasse" van (boulevard?)bladen en eventueel toezicht op de waarheidslievendheid van zulke.

Ik heb met tamelijk veel Joodse mensen in het actieve deel van mijn leven doorgaans zeer prettige werk-contacten onderhouden en die lieten bij mij geen indruk achter van enig on-fatsoen en zéker niet van DOMHEID.

[Salmon L.A.]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door /\|cazar

Om eerlijk te zijn, Himmler had het toneelspel door, ging daarom naar Tibet op zoek naar de godenstad...





Deze held had het toneelspel door, wist van de rol van de mindere menschen en probeerde de totale vernietiging te voorkomen.

Niet gelukt, de adepten van ANUN, ook gekend als YHWH ( yahweh, de oudtestamentische waanzinnige god, god der diamanten)

Oei, te vroeg wakker geworden ? Veel hoofdpijn zeker?
En waar is je nickmate Breydel? die komt er nog eerlijker voor uit waar hij zijn inspiratie haalt.

[/\|cazar]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Salmon L.A.

Oei, te vroeg wakker geworden ? Veel hoofdpijn zeker?
En waar is je nickmate Breydel? die komt er nog eerlijker voor uit waar hij zijn inspiratie haalt.

zonneslag ...

maar ik moest mijn reputatie van nazi ( en nu ook al moslim ! ) toch staande houden, niet ?

op dit forum wordt er heel snel met verwijten en adjectieven gesmeten, dus voelde ik mij verplicht ... vandaar ...

wat niet wegneemt dat anun en yhwh een interessante verkenningspiste is ( voor de kenners )

[Andro]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door exodus

Zeer juist!! Sterke tekst!! Mensen gebruik uw [size=6]VERSTAND[/size].

Heb niet anders gedaan, maar tot mijn spijt, moet ik je teleurstellen dat al jouw Tru/Complotheorien, stilletjes in het absurt aan het verzinken zijn. Sorry dat ik het zo moet zeggen.[edit]
[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by Andromeda1968 on 13-07-2005 at 23:32
Reason:
--------------------------------

Heb niet anders gedaan, maar tot mijn spijt, moet ik je teleurstellen dat al jouw Tru/Complotheorien, stilletjes in het absurt aan het verzinken zijn. Sorry dat ik het zo moet zeggen.[/size]

[size=1]Before any edits, post was:
--------------------------------

Heb niet anders gedaan, maar tot mijn spijt, moet ik je teleurstellen dat al jouw Tru/Complotheorien, stilletjes aan in het absurt aan het verzinken zijn. Sorry dat ik het zo moet zeggen.[/size]

[/edit]

[Salmon L.A.]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door /\|cazar

Als afsluitertje voor vandaag nog maar de reaktie van de toenmalige eerste minister van Israel ( Netanyahu, u weet wel, diegene die plotsklaps voor de aanslagen in London besliste om veilig binnen te blijven ... )

Citaat:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attack would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good…….Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)"
Als u dat normaal vind, dan ben ik graag abnormaal.

Uit welk rioolblaadje komt dit "citaat"?

[Pascal L.]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door /\|cazar

zonneslag ...

maar ik moest mijn reputatie van nazi ( en nu ook al moslim ! ) toch staande houden, niet ?

op dit forum wordt er heel snel met verwijten en adjectieven gesmeten, dus voelde ik mij verplicht ... vandaar ...

wat niet wegneemt dat anun en yhwh een interessante verkenningspiste is ( voor de kenners )

Moslim van cultuur/geloof, fascistoide van ideologie (vandaar nazi dus)

[/\|cazar]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pascal L.

Moslim van cultuur/geloof, fascistoide van ideologie (vandaar nazi dus)

u heeft het blijkbaar niet op moslims begrepen, en u gaat mij hier de les spellen over verdraagzaamheid en diets meer.

blijf toch met je vingers uit je neus, man.

[/\|cazar]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Andromeda1968

Heb niet anders gedaan, maar tot mijn spijt, moet ik je teleurstellen dat al jouw Tru/Complotheorien, stilletjes in het absurt aan het verzinken zijn. Sorry dat ik het zo moet zeggen.

nuja, op dit en andere dingesen reageer ik niet ... het zijn loze woordjes in het ijle, zoals ze voortgebracht worden door nog een aantal individuen alhier, zonder argumenten als een kip zonder kop roepen dat complotten niet bestaan ...

het schoolsysteem van 18 jaar knikken op commando werkt blijkbaar uitstekend

[Firestone]

Ach, /\lcazar speelt de vermoorde onschuld.

Ik heb hem alvast nooit nazi genoemd. Wel gereageerd op zijn talrijke ongefundeerde posts over joden en hun betrokkenheid bij allerlei complotten. En opgemerkt dat hij niet meer doet dan haat zaaien door zijn talrijke insinuaties en beschuldigingen.

Op de argumenten reageert hij nooit, behalve door te stellen dat alle ernstige bronnen en wetenschappers liegen of mee in het complot zitten.

[Pascal L.]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door /\|cazar

u heeft het blijkbaar niet op moslims begrepen, en u gaat mij hier de les spellen over verdraagzaamheid en diets meer.

blijf toch met je vingers uit je neus, man.

Nee, je weet zelf ook dat dat niet klopt; ik heb al vaak duidelijk gemaakt dat het conflict niet met de moslims is maar met dat groepje fundamentalisten dat er een radikale ideologie op nahoudt en verantwoordelijk is voor het terrorisme, of sympathie heeft voor het terrorisme.

Ik kan u zeker de les spellen over verdraagzaamheid, net zoals de meerderheid van mensen op dit forum u terecht de les zou kunnen spellen over verdraagzaamheid.

Wat u bedoelt met die vingers in mijn neus, dat begrijp ik niet, maar soit.[edit]
[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by Pascal L. on 13-07-2005 at 23:42
Reason:
--------------------------------

Nee, je weet zelf ook dat dat niet klopt; ik heb al vaak duidelijk gemaakt dat het conflict niet met de moslims is maar met dat groepje fundamentalisten dat er een radikale ideologie op nahoudt en verantwoordelijk is voor het terrorisme, of sympathie heeft voor het terrorisme.

Ik kan u zeker de les spellen over verdraagzaamheid, net zoals de meerderheid van mensen op dit forum u terecht de les zou kunnen spellen over verdraagzaamheid.

Wat u bedoelt met die vingers in mijn neus, dat begrijp ik niet, maar soit.[/size]

[size=1]Before any edits, post was:
--------------------------------

Nee, je weet zelf ook dat dat niet klopt; ik heb al vaak duidelijk heb gemaakt dat het conflict niet met de moslims is maar met dat groepje fundamentalisten dat er een radikale ideologie op nahoudt en verantwoordelijk is voor het terrorisme, of sympathie heeft voor het terrorisme.

Ik kan u zeker de les spellen over verdraagzaamheid, net zoals de meerderheid van mensen op dit forum u terecht de les zou kunnen spellen over verdraagzaamheid.

Wat u bedoelt met die vingers in mijn neus, dat begrijp ik niet, maar soit.[/size]

[/edit]

[/\|cazar]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Firestone

Ach, /\lcazar speelt de vermoorde onschuld.

Ik heb hem alvast nooit nazi genoemd. Wel gereageerd op zijn talrijke ongefundeerde posts over joden en hun betrokkenheid bij allerlei complotten. En opgemerkt dat hij niet meer doet dan haat zaaien door zijn talrijke insinuaties en beschuldigingen.

Op de argumenten reageert hij nooit, behalve door te stellen dat alle ernstige bronnen en wetenschappers liegen of mee in het complot zitten.

nu niet overdrijven, er zijn een pak wetenschappers die zich met het originele verhaal een breuk lachen.

inclusief 1 ingenieur, mezelf .

[/\|cazar]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pascal L.

Nee, je weet zelf ook dat dat niet klopt; ik heb al vaak duidelijk heb gemaakt dat het conflict niet met de moslims is maar met dat groepje fundamentalisten dat er een radikale ideologie op nahoudt en verantwoordelijk is voor het terrorisme, of sympathie heeft voor het terrorisme.

Ik kan u zeker de les spellen over verdraagzaamheid, net zoals de meerderheid van mensen op dit forum u terecht de les zou kunnen spellen over verdraagzaamheid.

Wat u bedoelt met die vingers in mijn neus, dat begrijp ik niet, maar soit.

u sprak redelijk veralgemend over moslims in uw vorige post, maar soit.