Posts
This is what they teach children on Palestinian TV. I wonder if they have a licence from Disney to use Mickey Mouse?
Disney daughter calls Muslim Mickey "evil"
Prager: A Letter to Our Soldiers in Iraq
Tonight’s #Top20Posts: It's Go Time
-
*Sponsored by directorblue.substack.com. Follow us on Twitter @directorblue*
.
20
We are the patriots in blue states
We’ve usually been forgotten — but...
12 hours ago
Wanted , due to acts of Terrorism.
ReplyDeleteThese men have the following aims.
1 : To bring together all those interested in liberation.
2 : To appear as the only active Jewish military organization.
3 : To take over the Land of Israel by armed force.
Sound familiar?
No it does not sound even remotely familiar. There is zero moral equivalency in this case, and only the most confused sort of lefty would find a moral equivalency using Mickey Mouse to encourage children to blow themselves up, and Israel's struggle for independence.
ReplyDeleteI certainly would have supported any effort to kick the British out of Palestine and Begin's Irgun for the most part did a good job forcing the issue and changing the facts on the ground. The British were in the end forced to leave and the Jewish homeland was established.
The Arab states refused recognize the new state, declared war and invaded in an effort to destroy it. They failed in their effort. What all of that has to do with using Mickey Mouse to promote Jihad is lost on me and borders on a sick, pathological need to create moral equivalencies when there are none.
One more time :
ReplyDelete1 : To bring together all those interested in liberation.
3 : To take over the Land of Israel by armed force.
Both the Zioinst militant organizations (may I remind you of the King David hotel bombing?) mentioned above,and organizations like Hamas and the Iraqi resistance against "nation building in our image",are more similar than you'd like to accept. That is why I posted this,and showed comparison. Israel was born out of Terrorism. British left because of repeated Jewish militant attacks, and Israel dominated the entire region.
With your comments supporting Begin, you support someone who could be compared to Abu Zarqawi, or dare I say it Bin Laden, in his day, by the British who were trying to keep a lid on all this. The attack on the King David hotel was a direct attack on the centre of British operations,where many innocent people were killed. We could say it was a mini 9/11.
Begin specifically ordered this attack, and later even became a "Priminister". Clearly you certainly accept the two aims above (#1 & #13),at least. You say you would have supported "any efforts" to kick British out of Palestine.
Any efforts? Then surely that would mean support for the attacks by the Irgun and Lehi militant groups. Which included bombing of British infrastructure,assasination,and leaving land mines in Arab markets (which children were probably walking around in too, of course).
In other words, you'd agree with the famous saying - "One mans terrorist,is another mans freedom fighter" it seems. Once in top dog position though, peoples views change. They support resistance (which others called "terrorism") when it is in "their" interest.
But they would call those very same people "terrorists" when it is 'not' in their interest, and "their" rule is challenged. Plain and simple. We see this with U.S support,training,arming,and funding of Islamic resistance in Afghanistan against Soviet expansion into the nation. But we see the very similar people now being called "Evil terrorists" when they make life difficult for American nation building in Iraq.
We also see Israel calling anyone who doesn't sit back and shrug as Palestinian homes are knocked down with bulldozers for new more Jewish settlements,"terrorists". Children in lands where this kind of hell is going on, have the "luxury" of having fun and watching Mickey Mouse not "Telling it like it is".
No,I hate that children are being taught this. But it seems they need to know who their enemy is when their enemy is a neighbour who has continually squeezed them into a corner and treats them like Dogs.
Britain would have been wiser to insist that Israel was created on somewhere like the Falkland Islands. At least it wouldn't be any trouble over there (mind you, I'm assuming that of course).
Israel likes to play the "innocent victim" of aggressive neighbours. Although it certainly does face hostility (some of it justified, as I mention), the roots of its creation and its comparisons with militant organizations amongst the Palestinians today, is obvious.
The absolute silence, speaks volumes Joe.
ReplyDelete"I'll let the readers decide" (to borrow your phrase).
The silence has to do with my traveling over the past three days. Notice that no posts have been made during that time.
ReplyDeleteThe King David Hotel was the British MILITARY headquarters in the region. That they would use a civilian hotel as their military headquarters is telling, but still not as bad as Hezbollah hiding behind civilians and the skirts of women in Beirut. It is unfortunate that innocent peopled died (including Jews by the way). The British were blockading the coast and preventing thousands upon thousands of Jewish refugees from the worst holocaust human history from entering Israel with no place else to go. They (the British) deserved to be forced out and I certainly would have supported extreme measures to achieve that goal if necessary. It was a just cause. However, I would never have supported the purposeful slaughter of civilians, and the Irgun (a relatively small faction of the Jewish establishment at the time) never purposefully set out to kill civilians as a strategic method of operation. Innocent people did die, including in blunders, occasional overzealousness by mostly untrained participants and poorly planned and executed operations. But never, even in the worse case, did a member of the Irgun blow themselves up on a crowded bus full of women and children, or anything even remotely similar to that, as is the publicly stated objective of not a small faction like the Irgun, but close to a majority of Israel’s enemies (HAMAS as an example). The moral equivalence is simply not there. Nice try though. Ultimately, the United Nations voted for partition and for the British to leave and for the State of Israel to be created. The British came to see the error of the policy, joined in voting to recognize Israel in the UN... and left the country as they should have done earlier. Great Britain is a strong supporter of Israel today just as it is a supporter of the United States, who also waged war to kick the British out of North America with far greater casualties a century and a half earlier.
Then Arabs refused to recognize tiny Israel and the UN approval for independence, and they attacked in mass...bombing Tel Aviv from the air only hours its declaration of independence and sending large armies to destroy it…. and then they lost the war that they themselves initiated....and have been whining and crying ever since.
Note: Israel is not engaging in the kind of mass destruction of Palestinian homes as you would like to portray and ignorant people would buy in to. Israel is in a position to wipe the entire Palestinian populations off the face of the map in 24 hours if it chooses to do so. It could carpet bomb Gaza and simply level it completely in about an hour. It would never do such a thing because that would be inconsistent with its values. On the other hand, if the Arabs were in a position to wipe tiny Israel off the map, they would have done so many times over by now. And indeed have tried to do so multiple times. I’ll let you make outrageous and loud claims designed for ignorant folks in the West who have never read a real history book. I will calmly and simply… stick to the facts.