Israel is trying to drag America into a war w/ Iran

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone know why the news coverage is so asymmetric? The bombs dropped in Israel are so full of empathetic videos of "oh no." "Oh this is just so tragic. I hope everyone is safe and ok..."

On the other hand, the coverage of bombings anywhere outside of Israel by Israel is presented in a cold/calculated manner or is completely victorious sounding... anyone else see this dichotomy?

Look at the makeup of the lead anchors, Tapper, Bash, Blitzer, etc. and you have your answer.

And then they tell you "You're 'antisemitic!' because they stupidly think it's about them simply being Jewish rather than literal Zionists. Wolf Blitzer *directly* worked for AIPAC and the Jerusalem Post. Jonah Goldberg was a damned prison guard in Israel. David Brooks' son was in the IDF, Bret Stephens wrote an article about the "diseased Arab Mind" and THEN got hired by the NYT. Dana Bash and Jake Tapper are outright lying and spreading Israeli propaganda.

You think this glaring Zionism having tainted US media coverage for a very long time, hasn't been precisely what has brainwashed Americans into believing every Arab and Muslim is some nefarious, inhuman caricature when these are just some of the people who get to DEFINE the conflict in US media? I can go even further with the list of people who've so profoundly failed the American people when it comes to journalistic integrity in covering this *occupation*

Most Jews are Zionists. So you kind of are talking about them.

Most Americans are Zionists.

The percentage of Americans that think Israel has no right to exist is vanishingly small. Zionist is not the insult that progressives seem to think it is. It's like denouncing Air Breathers.

Not sure what’s more astonishing - the fact that you actually expect others to believe that Zionism isn’t far more insidious than your “right to exist” blather, or the fact that just 80 years later, you actually believe that it’s all sewn up, that the sides have been set, and that the pendulum will never again swing against you.

I only regret that I won’t be able to see your face when the moment of realization arrives. That moment when accountability comes calling will be a rough one for you and those like you.

Always with the vague threats about how rough things are going to get for Jews.

And FWIW, your definition of Zionism is yours alone. When I say that most Jews are Zionists, I mean that most Jews believe in a Jewish homeland.

That’s not Zionism. FFS, I don’t oppose the existence of a Jewish homeland (assuming it reforms from the catastrophe that Israel is at present).

Does that make me a Zionist? No, because I don’t believe in violently displacing others to expand Israel, I don’t believe that Jews are better than everyone else, and I don’t believe in dehumanizing indigenous people in a craven effort to blame them for the atrocities that Israel has visited upon them for decades.

That … ^^^ … that’s the true mission of Zionism. It’s a hideous mission hiding behind a Jewish homeland charade.

That (believing in the existence of a Jewish homeland) is the EXACT definition of Zionism.

From the OED:

“Zionism is a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel.”

The far left has distorted the term and made it a slur, which is why so many people view them as anti-Semitic.

“Anti-Zionist” effectively means “death to Israel”.

You’re either intentionally dishonest, or a moron. Probably both.

Do you think the Ku Klux Klan’s mission statement reads “Kill Black People”?

Zionism is a disease. It uses the false definition you tried to sell to cloak its insidious actual mission that has already been outlined above.

Take it up with the Oxford English Dictionary folks.

The above quoted definition is absolutely the commonly understood meaning of the term.

Again, that’s fully incongruent with the policies and actions of the state.

Separate issue entirely; does not change the meaning of the word.

Disagree. I’ll repeat the point - the Ku Klux Klan mission doesn’t say anything about killing young black men.

According to your logic, criticism of the Ku Klux Klan should therefore be blunted because the stated mission of the movement underlying the organization does nothing that could be said to offend one’s sensibilities.

Critics of the KKK should have to dance around the obvious cloaked meaning in the mission? Horseshit.

Except that you’re wrong about your history: the Klan charter expressly calls for “maintain[ing] forever… the supremacy of the white race,” along with other nastiness.

So your historical comparison is totally inapt or, to use your terminology, “horseshit”.

You’ve done nothing other than stating “because I say so” to demonstrate how Zionism isn’t the insidious, perverse movement that we see in action today through the policies and actions of the State of Israel.

We see how Israel operates. Your response is to argue that we should not believe our lying eyes, and instead acknowledge a credo that bears zero resemblance to what our eyes see.

Respectfully - maybe concentrate your efforts to defend Israel’s systemic atrocities with gullible people who are willing to blind themselves to accept you at your word?

Wrong on definition of Zionism, per OED.

Wrong on history of the Klan, per its own charter.

And wrong about my purpose here.

Keep trying. Perhaps someday, if you keep trying your very, very best, you’ll get one right.

Even a stopped clock, and all that.