Disappearing Bees! Something else to hang on those Joos!

RE: Disappearing Bees! Something else to hang on those Joos

So, "environmental activists" are not only communist and anti-American, they're also anti-Semitic. Thanks for the clarification.

Pettyfog and the Right Wing, simplifying complex problems by scapegoating for over 50 years.

Sigh

 

RE: Disappearing Bees! Something else to hang on those Joos

Who's Abourezk? Is he one of the guys who conned the Administration out of millions by inventing the democractic Iraqi underground?

 

and what he actually said was that the 9/11 terrorists played into Israeli Lobby's hand by creating another "bad guy." He said that after the fall of the Soviet Union, the natural co-enemy of Israel and the US disappeared and the strength of the Israel lobby was waning. The 9/11 attackes created another mutual enemy and the Israel Lobby gained strength as a result. He said is was as if the terrorists had cooperated with the Israel Lobby.

He DIDN'T say that the Jews [or I guess Rush sent out an email telling all the right wingers to say "Joos"] were behind 9/11. You'd have to twist yourself into a pretzel to get that interpretation -- I know; you're very limber for your age. Perhaps you just have a knee-jerk hatred for Christians [Abourezk is one, of course].

 

Irgun, the Stern Gang, and -- at times -- even Haganah all participated in terrorist activity prior to partition in 1948. There were also several Arab gangs bombing and killing British officials in Cairo and elsewhere in the Middle East during this period.

"The Context" you're referring to comes about after WWII when the allies wanted to reward the various European anti-Nazi resistance movements by trying to differintiate their activities from other -- tactically similar -- groups. And so we created the term "Freedom Fighters" to differentiate them from "terrorists" and we've been trying to keep them straight ever since. Were the MauMau terrorists or freedom fighters? How about the Chechnyians? When did the Afghans go from one to the other, and how did they get back to their original stance? It's certainly nothing that they did to change their aims or tactics.

Instead of taking the simple [and, this time, correct] expedient of saying "Terror is a weapon; someone who uses this weapon as a means of political change is a terrorist," we instead decide where WE stand on the issue and, if the guy agrees with our philosophy [or more correctly, serves our purpose regardless of his "warts"], he's a freedom fighter. If he doesn't, he's a terrorist.

As a result, we get some strange equations. For instance, a fanatic terror group supported by Iran can be called "courageous, brave, and well organized" by a former US Senator. A network of government-supported Central American death squads can murder children, farmers, and American nuns, and still be called "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers" by the sitting President of the United States. You say to-MAY-to and I say to-MAH-to.

As for me and my house, there is no context. If your primary means of gathering income is through committing crimes, you're a criminal. If your primary means of expressing yourself politically or philosophically is terror, you're a terrorist -- be you Arab, Israeli, Muslim, Christian, an outlaw, or state supported.

 

although, god knows, you've been doing your best to make them disappear