skitzorat Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 10 minutes ago, RobSS said: I gave the analogy of the British. The British, as a group, are not responsible for the Iraq war, Forgot to add reply to that. Ask Bibi Netanyahu how he felt about the UK and US sending their youth into Iraq to die for the Greater Israel Project. You are a fool if you think Blair and Bush weren't puppets of zion and playing their role in the Protocols. You're hero David Icke often speaks about Netanyahu's calls for a war on terror, pre 9/11 Although the doctrine of War on Terror was announced by G.W. Bush following the events of 9/11, the real architect of that doctrine is Benjamin Netanyahu. While most people think that Netanyahu is an Israeli politician, he is also an author of a few books on terrorism and is the real father of the War on Terror doctrine.One of his early works on terrorism International Terrorism: Challenge and Response dates back to 1979. His major definitive work Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorism was published in 1995. He has also been promoting his War on Terror doctrine in his speeches. One such speech was delivered at the Jewish Agency Assembly Plenary meetings held in Israel on 24th June 2001. The main points of that speech are: The Palestinians are to blame for the conflict in the Middle East, and specifically Yasser Arafat. It is legitimate for established states to engage in wars, because the societies are imperfect. Palestinians are not waging a legitimate war (like established states using regular armies) and are terrorists. The Palestinian terrorists deliberately attack civilians. The Israelis are responding in self-defense. When the Israelis respond, they respond against combatants. Arafat and the Palestinian Authority are committed to the destruction of the State of Israel. Arafat and the Palestinian Authority are using the illegitimate and criminal means of terrorism. The Palestinian are wrong and the Israelis are right. Terrorism invariably comes from terrorist regimes. Terror is useful, only if the cost of waging terrorism, the cost of that regime is lower than the benefits of waging terrorism. To stop terrorism, one must make the terrorist regime pay very very heavily. The root core of the Middle East conflict is the existential opposition by a great many in the Arab world still, and certainly by the Palestinian leadership to Israel's very existence. The first way of ensuring Israel's existence is that the Arabs simply understand that Israel is so powerful, so permanent, so unconquerable in every way that they will simply abandon by the force of the inertia of Israel's permanence all opposition to Israel. The second way [of ensuring Israel's existence] is for the forces of democratization get to the Arab regimes. Using propaganda techniques, like broadcasting American television serials (which Netanyahu sees as subversive material) will ultimately bring down regimes like the Ayatola regime and the Khoumeni regime in Iran. In the 21st century, you cannot achieve a military victory unless you achieve a political victory to accompany it; and you cannot achieve a political victory unless you achieve a victory in public opinion; and you cannot achieve a victory in public opinion unless you persuade that public that your cause is just. It doesn't make any difference if you are on the side of the angels or on the side of the devil. Anyone fighting in the international arena for public opinion must argue the justice of his cause. Hitler argued for the justice of his cause and Stalin argued for the justice of his cause. They all had propaganda machines. Whether you are right or you are wrong you must argue the justice of your cause. Although this speech was delivered some two months before the events of 9/11, one can see in it all the main points advanced by G.W. Bush in his speeches on War on Terror, which followed the 9/11. But at the time of the delivery of the Netanyahu speech, the interest in the Netanyahu “War on Terror” doctrine was limited to a narrow circle of professional Greater Israel Zionists and Middle East experts. It was also obvious that the Netanyahu doctrine could not be implemented by Israel alone without involving into it the full military and financial might of the USA. At the time such involvement seemed an unlikely prospect which could only be achieved through some kind of miracle. But this “miracle” did not take long to happen. http://www.shamsali.org/taj/origwat.html And the Council of Foreign Relations (I think?) speaking of a "need for a new Pearl Harbour" - PRIOR to 9/11. I do recall millions of Brits protesting against the war though - in an absolute defiant collective, kinda opposite to the thousands of collective anti-white tweets from the jewsh bluechecks I see though, if you want to make that analogy. 13 minutes ago, RobSS said: I've never complained about you documenting Jewish behaviour where you have specific evidence. Yes you have! That's been your deal throughout this. FFS. 14 minutes ago, RobSS said: You just want to find a scapegoat for everything that you personally perceive as a problem. I just listed some examples of why there IS a PROBLEM and perhaps why it's such a problem. It's not my "perception" - if you failed to gather this problem throughout your repeated nose-poking in this thread and being hit with continued documentation from many contributors, you DO have a comprehension problem or are deliberately being obtuse. I'm not scapegoating the jews - they just appear to be opening the gates in exactly the same way they did to Visigothic Christian Hispania; opening the literal gates to cities to the Umayyad Muslims and Moorish invaders under their general Tariq ibn Ziyad (Gibraltar). I blame the hordes of hostile foreigners for flooding into Europa by their own will and the white liberal retards who welcome them with kisses and roses just as equally. 21 minutes ago, RobSS said: You misrepresent viewpoints and just waste you're time wining long posts to make it appear that you're refuting something, but in reality, you're refuting nothing. My viewpoints are not misrepresented. I make sure they're clear and well documented and sourced. I haven't refuted anything - that's been your schtick - burden of proof is still on you. 18 minutes ago, RobSS said: Not all Jews are interested in or venerate the Star of David! It's a sarcastic MEME! It didn't need to be rebutted with such sincerity. lol Clearly sarcasm, any form of wit or twist, basic comprehension of paragraphs and understanding of how debates/arguments are meant to flow online go right over your head. LOL not only "the Left can't meme" but Leftoids don't understand them either. Try harder next time. But it is somewhat true, the Star of David is a more recent symbol to be associated with Jewry, gaining far more prevalence since the start of the Zionist movement. It's the minora that's more their ancient universal symbol. But again speaking with such knowing: "Not all jews interested in Star of David" - speaking as if you know a heap of jews that don't feel some attachment to it! Just as you were speaking like you know "all these non-kosher jews that would eat bacon even if secular" or "many jews converting to Christianity" How many jewish people do you actually know to make such claims and speak for them with such authority? That was rhetorical btw. I'm sick of the jews *not all jews* just talking about them and their supremacist religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.