“King Bibi” vs. the West

One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail”

Rabbi Yaacov Perrin [1]

 

[Editors Note:  Dear Readers, we have another great ‘recap and connect the dots’ piece from Jonas today. With the information overload from which we all suffer these days it is a treat to enjoy the hard work of someone else to put together extensively cited material like you will find in this article…who said what, when, why, and where. We look forward to many more. Be sure to pass his work around as it is top notch, and quick primer material for busy people…Jim W. Dean]

                 … by  Jonas E. Alexis

King Bibi

Mahim Maher of the Jewish Journal declared of the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Jhangvi last month that “I don’t understand why the government, law enforcement agencies and the courts cannot just convict these terrorists once and for all.

The politicians are so scared of them and indeed so are the police that no one takes action against them, writes against them or convicts them.

Even the judges are afraid because these killers never forget and never forgive. No one has the courage to deal with this problem. And all those mothers and wives who lost their loved ones, those children who lost their fathers will not forgive us for it.”[2]

In the same vein, top U.S. General James Mattis, a person who has been pushing a hawkish decision on Iran, declared of the Syrian rebels, “We don’t want to inadvertently, with the best of intentions, arm people who are basically sworn enemies.”[3]

But since Mattis is for the collapse of Iran, he subtly said, “The collapse of the Assad regime would be biggest strategic setback for Iran in 25 years.”[4]

All right. We all know that the Syrian rebels are largely terrorists by now. How, then, do they get the support of the neoconservative/Zionist mafia?

The answer is pretty simple: Israel and the Zionist regime in the West pretend that they are fighting terrorism, but they are actually blessing terrorism by sponsoring terrorist cells both strategically and monetarily.

Next month, we will even see that the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir was a terrorist and the West knew this. Yet Shamir never got water-boarded or even questioned by the West for his terrorist crimes. Where are Sam Harris and Steven Pinker and Alan Dershowitz and the neoconservative hawks when you need them?

But since the media is largely under the guiding principles of the Zionist mafia,[5] they tell the American people what to think. In the process, 99 percent of Americans came to believe that Iranian nukes are a threat,[6] while U.S. intelligence and former CIA executives such as Paul R. Pillar tell us otherwise.

Moreover, when Iran does not show any evidentiary sign that it is building nuclear weapons, the Zionist regime tells us that Iran is deceiving us. “‘We are deeply concerned with what appears to be Iran’s unwavering commitment to deception, defiance, and delay,’” declared Joseph Macmanus, the US ambassador to the IAEA.[7]

Again, it is pretty clear that Iran cannot be an existential threat in the Middle East or to the West, as has been postulated by neoconservative hawks and former Trotskyites of various stripes.

Jack Straw

Even Jack Straw, Britain’s foreign secretary from 2001 to 2006, declared just recently in the British newspaper The Telegraph,

“In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Iranian president Mohammad Khatami reached out to the United States, promising active co-operation against al-Qaeda and the Taliban – and, in the initial months, delivering that.

His ‘reward’ was for Iran to be lumped in with Iraq and North Korea as part of the ‘axis of evil’ by President Bush in January 2002, a serious error by the US which severely weakened the moderates around Khatami and laid the ground for the hardliners who succeeded him.”[8]

In other words, Iran wanted to fight terrorism, but Bush said Iran was evil![9] Can anyone with an ounce of common sense seriously say that Bush was fighting terrorism? Straw continued,

What Iran seeks is twofold. First, it wants its “full rights” under the NPT for civil nuclear power. It can fairly point out that three nuclear weapons states – Israel, India and Pakistan – have always refused to join the NPT, while North Korea, now boasting about its atomic capability, withdrew from the Treaty in 2003. Second, it seeks an end to its international isolation and a recognition (especially by the US) of its regional status.[10]

Straw, like Paul R. Pillar, even went further to say that “a nuclear-armed Iran would certainly not be worth a war.”[11] And by 2012, U.S. agencies again declared that Iran was not building a bomb.[12]

Yet in an effort to manipulate America, Jewish journalist Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post writes recently that America’s “greatest national security threat is Iran.”[13]

Pat Buchanan

Nonsense! As Patrick Buchanan points out, “How is America, with thousands of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons, scores of warships in the Med, Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean, bombers and nuclear subs and land-based missiles able to strike and incinerate Iran within half an hour, threatened by Iran?

Iran has no missile that can reach us, no air force or navy that would survive the first days of war, no nuclear weapons, no bomb-grade uranium from which to build one. All of her nuclear facilities are under constant United Nations surveillance and inspection.”[14]

The only plausible reason why Rubin can summon ridiculous propaganda like this is because she is marshalling the same lies that Bush and others propagated in order to invade Iraq. Rubin moves on to tell us that “Iran has picked 16 new locations for nuclear plants.”

The actual fact?  Iran only has one nuclear plant, Bushehr.[15] Iran possesses no nuclear bomb and to Rubin this is “scary.”[16]

Israel possesses hundreds of nuclear bombs, but that makes Rubin sleep in peace. How in the world can this lady maintain these political contradictions simultaneously while her mental powers do not explode?

Jennifer Rubin

As I argued in “Abu Ghraib and the Jewish Century,” people like Rubin are geniuses in the twenty-first century because they are able to live in two contradictory, incompatible and irreconcilable worlds: the world of reason and the world of nonsense at the same time and in the same respect.

In other words, people like Jennifer Rubin, Sam Harris, Ben Shapiro, and Steven Pinker cognitively and vigorously prove that Aristotle was wrong in postulating that A cannot be a non-A. In the “Jewish Century,” it can be both.

Hitler was wrong in expulsing the Jews from their homeland and from their precious family, but Israel was not wrong in expulsing the Palestinians from their homeland and creating what Gilad Atzmon would call “an open air prison.”[17]

Jewish organizations can be angry at Hitler for forced immigration and even place a perpetual burden on Germany in reparation, but Palestinians who got expelled from their homes cannot even go back to their homeland and get established. If this is not moral perversion, I do not know what is.

Rubin makes things even better: “For all intents and purposes, (Bibi) Netanyahu is now the West’s protector,” says Rubin.[18] The West’s protector? The man who has lied to the U.S. and the Western world for more than a decade about Iran’s nuclear programs is the West’s protector? Who put him on that pedestal?

Despite the fact that “King Bibi” has lied to us for decades, he is still on the news saying that Iran is up to something. “Words alone will not stop Iran. Sanctions alone will not stop Iran. Sanctions must be coupled with a clear and credible military threat if diplomacy and sanctions fail,” he said four days ago.[19]

Can “King Bibi” be trusted? Isn’t it time for decent Americans and people of reason everywhere to stop listening to this man? Both Europe and America are in economic disaster at this present time, and now we have a foreign potentate telling us that we need to bomb Iran, a country that has been right in line with the Nonproliferation Treaty.

More importantly, Iran has not violated international laws with respect to its nuclear programs. Listen to Yousaf Butt, a nuclear physicist at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, California, and a scientific consultant to the Federation of American Scientists and a physicist in the High-Energy Astrophysics Division at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics:

Yousaf Butt – nuclear physicist

“Netanyahu’s prediction, however, appears to be based on some unsubstantiated assumptions regarding Iranian intentions and capabilities. Yet it can provide ammunition to the hawks in Washington and Jerusalem, who could rush us into another needless and counterproductive war in the Middle East. Netanyahu’s assertions do not stand up to technical scrutiny.

Critically, he does not mention that Iran has been converting part of its 20-percent-enriched uranium hexafluoride gaseous stockpile into metallic form, for use as fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor. This conversion essentially freezes the enrichment level and subtracts from the ‘enrichable’ gaseous stockpile used in centrifuges.

It is not something that a nation hell-bent on weaponization would do. Neglecting this fact in coming up with a hypothetical “time line to a bomb” is like balancing your bank account by registering just your income – but failing to subtract the amounts of the checks you’ve written.

Basically, whatever amount is converted to metal oxide form is not easily available for further enrichment to weapons-grade uranium, even if Iran decided to launch a weaponization effort in the future. Reconversion back to gaseous form is difficult and time-consuming and a major roadblock if a country intends to ‘race to the bomb.’

In addition, it is known that the Iranians are experiencing technical problems in converting their gaseous 20-percent-enriched uranium hexafluoride stockpile into metal fuel plates. If the world powers and the International Atomic Energy Agency are concerned and want to secure Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, one way would be to offer Iran technical assistance with this conversion. This sort of technical help is a normal part of the IAEA’s official duties in member nations.

Alternatively, the world powers negotiating with Iran could agree to implement a simultaneous exchange of Iranian enriched uranium gas for foreign-produced metallic fuel plates. Indeed, if Iran received sufficient assistance with this exchange it would end up quickly retreating from the various artificial weaponization ‘red lines.

Another error Netanyahu makes in his flawed time line is assuming that Iran could instantaneously install, debug and run thousands of centrifuges at full capacity. This is highly unlikely. There are almost 12,700 first-generation (IR-1) centrifuges spinning at Natanz.

Installing and starting up 3,000 or so of the new second-generation (IR-2) machines will take months. It is akin to setting up a whole new facility. The latest IAEA report on Iran indicates they have installed – but not yet hooked-up ‑ just 180 of the IR-2 machines. It is not clear that they will be connected in the foreseeable future or even if they will work.

A host of engineering teething-problems are sure to ensue in starting up new centrifuge cascades; it is inconceivable that the cascades would immediately be run at full speed. Theoretically, the IR-2s work about three times faster than the IR-1s   but it could take months or even years to realize the full potential of the second-generation centrifuges.“[20]

Bushehr

_____________________________________

We simply cannot cite the entire article here to save time, but Butt moved on to debunk many of the myths surrounding Iran and the bomb. Simply put, it is quite ridiculous to say that Iran is building a bomb. As previously said, Netanyahu is leading the West into the abyss of madness by propounding lie after lie and no serious politician has the guts to say enough.

Moreover, Rubin, whether she likes it or not, is indirectly King Bibi’s trusted agent in America. And how is King Bibi going to protect the West? Well, Rubin moves on to tell us that Obama and Hagel are incapable of executing “a military strike on Iran,”[21] and therefore King Bibi must take charge and tell the Western world that we ought to bomb Iran.

In a similar vein, George W. Bush told the entire nation during his administration that Iran and Syria “are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attack on our forces. We’ll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”[22]

[Editors Note: This, mind you, when the U.S. has never been able to control its borders despite much better resources. Canada and Australia cannot, or will not stop allowing Israel to use them as Intel bases for not only recruiting but operations.

What if some who really did have nuclear weapons told us, Canada and Australia, that if we did not stop supporting Israeli terrorism they would have to consider a pre-emptive strike, borrowing our own policy put onto us by the NeoCon retread tire store…Jim W. Dean]

Then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declared that there is a gulf between “reformers” and “extremists” in the Middle East, and the Sunnis, of course, are moderate and Syria and Iran are extremists. Rice declared that Iran and Syria “have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize.”[23]

Condoleezza Rice

Rice proved that in the Zionist world, almost anything is possible. You can pronounce some of the most preposterous statements ever and still get away with the consequences. Moreover, you can commit some of the most heinous crimes of humanity and still get a lavish career at Stanford University, which is where Rice currently resides.

This is not the first time that Rice has been blinded by the Zionist dream. She declared in 2009 that torture was not in violation to Convention Against Torture.[24] Yet Bush was scared to death to go to Switzerland in order to put his torture policy to the test.[25] He decided not to go. (It has been reported that General David Patraeus was well aware of some of the brutal torture that had happened after the war.[26])

But that still did not stop the administration to push for another disastrous war on Iran. One former Bush Administration National Security Council official even declared then that

“The Administration is trying to make a case that Iran is more dangerous and more provocative than the Sunni insurgents to American interests in Iraq, when—if you look at the actual casualty numbers—the punishment inflicted on America by the Sunnis is greater by an order of magnitude. This is all part of the campaign of provocative steps to increase the pressure on Iran. The idea is that at some point the Iranians will respond and then the Administration will have an open door to strike at them.”[27]

George W. Bush

In other words, if you want your enemy to go to war, just provoke him.  Long before Bush invaded Iraq, he even talked about provoking Saddam in order to push Iraq into a bloody war![28] Bush got his wish, and now our precious Americans are paying the price.

Recently, U.S. envoy Joseph Macmanus walks out of a nuclear meeting because one of Iran’s representatives accused Israel of “genocide.”[29] Macmanus also charged Iran of a “commitment to deception, defiance, and delay.”[30]

Iran is right in line with the Nonproliferation treaty, but to Macmanus that represents deception. Israel does not even want to cooperate with the international community with respect to its nuclear warheads, but it is Iran that is using deception.

As we saw in the previous article, Israel has vaporized thousands upon thousands of Palestinians since its formation, but it is Iran that is using deception, defiance and delay. But how do the Zionists defend Israel?

Lawrence Wright of the New Yorker declared that “the Israeli military adopted painstaking efforts to spare civilian lives in Gaza.”[31] In the same vein, the legendary Alan Dershowitz told us that “Hamas knew that Israel would never fire at a home with civilians in it.

They also knew that if Israeli authorities did not learn there were civilians in the house and fired on it, Hamas would win a public relations victory by displaying the dead. Israel held its fire. The Hamas rockets that were protected by the human shields were then used against Israeli civilians.”[32]

As Norman Finkelstein has shown, the evidence and authorities to which Dershowitz appeals give a completely different account. In the end, it was a cheap way for Israeli officials to propagate deception about their crimes in Gaza.[33]

One of the countries in the Western world that has consistently resisted the Zionist manipulation of the West and America is Russia.[34] Perhaps it is America’s turn to wake up.

Editing:  Jim W. Dean


[1] Quoted in “From Orthodox Jewish Education to Hebron; Scripture Distorted,” NY Times, March 9, 1994.

[2] Mahim Maher, “Terrorist Running Free in Pakistan,” JewishJournal.com, February 23, 2013.

[3] Phil Stewart, “U.S. Effort on Iran Not Working, Syria Planning Under way: Mattis,” http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/05/us-usa-iran-syria-idUSBRE92417V20130305.

[4] Ibid.

[5] See for example Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993); J. J. Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment (New York: Perseus Books, 1997); Joel Stein, “Who Runs Hollywood? C’mon,” LA Times, December 19, 2008. Many Friedman, “Jews DO Control the Media,” Times of Israel, July 1, 2012. Neither Ginsberg nor Goldberg uses the word “Zionist,” but both authors declare indirectly that the media is a Jewish town.

[6] Haviv Rettig Gur, “99% of Americans Consider Iranian Nukes a Threat,” Times of Israel, February 20, 2013; see also Dana Hughes, “John Kerry Concedes Iran is Moving Closer to Possessing Nuclear Weapon,” ABC News, March 5, 2013.

[7] “U.S. and E.U. Call Out Iran’s Delay Tactics at IAEA Meeting,” Jerusalem Post, March 6, 2013.

[8] Jack Straw, “Even If Iran Gets the Bomb, It Won’t Be Worth It Going to War,” The Telegraph, February 25, 2013.

[9] For further studies on this issue, see for example Trita Parsi, Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008); A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama’s Diplomacy with Iran (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012).

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] James Risen and Mark Mazzetti, “U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb,” NY Times, February 24, 2013.

[13] Quoted in Patrick J. Buchanan, “Jenifer Rubin’s Infantile Conservatism,” American Conservative, February 25, 2013.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Gilad Atzmon, “There Is No Business Like Shoa Business,” http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/03/05/there-is-no-business-like-shoa-business/.

[18] Buchanan, “Jenifer Rubin’s Infantile Conservatism,” American Conservative, February 25.

[19] Quoted in Matt Spetalnick and Paul Eckert, “Netanyahu: ‘Credible Military Threat’ Needed to Stop Iran Nuclear Drive,” Reuters.com, March 4, 2013.

[20] Yousaf Butt, “How Close Is Iran to Nuclear Weapons?,” http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/22/how-close-is-iran-to-nuclear-weapons/.

[21] Buchanan, “Jenifer Rubin’s Infantile Conservatism,” American Conservative, February 25, 2013.

[22] Quoted in Hersh, “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s New Policy Benefitting our Enemies in the War on Terrorism?,” The New Yorker, March 5, 2007.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Glenn Kessler, “Rice Defends Use of Enhanced Technique,” Washington Post, May 1, 2009.

[25] Jeff Stein, “Bush Not At Risk of Arrest in Europe, Expert Say,” Washington Post, February 5, 2011; “Bush Cancels Visit to Switzerland Due to Threat of Torture Prosecution, Rights Group Say,” Huffington Post, February 5, 2011.

[26] Mona Mahmood, Maggie O’Kane, Chavala Madlena and Teresa Smith, “Revealed: Pentagon’s Link to Iraqi Torture Centres,” Guardian, March 6, 2013.

[27] Hersh, “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s New Policy Benefitting our Enemies in the War on Terrorism?,” The New Yorker, March 5, 2007.

[28] See for example Vincent Bugliosi, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder (New York: Perseus Books, 2008). For a short interview with Bugliosi on this issue, check out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtYotUN0VBk.

[29] Fredrik Dahl, “U.S. Envoy Walks Out of Nuclear Meeting Over Iran’s Israel Remark,” http://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-warns-iran-more-isolation-nuclear-dispute-113017009.html.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Finkelstein, This Time We Went Too Far., 88-89.

[32] Alan Dershowitz, “Israel’s Policy is Perfectly ‘Proportionate,’” Wall Street Journal, January 2, 2009.

[33] Finkelstein, This Time, 86-88.

Share...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on LinkedInShare on RedditShare on Tumblr

Related Posts:



All content herein is owned by author exclusively. Expressed opinions are not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians or Veterans Today Network and its assigns. In addition, all images within this post are the full responsibility of the author and NOT Veterans Today Network.
Legal Notice - Comment Policy

Posted by on March 8, 2013, With 1771 Reads Filed under Of Interest. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments Closed

15 Responses to "“King Bibi” vs. the West"

  1. Terry McKibbin  March 9, 2013 at 6:19 am

    “Long before Bush invaded Iraq, he even talked about provoking Saddam in order to push Iraq into a bloody war! Bush got his wish, and now our precious Americans are paying the price.”

    Really, Jonas?! After your initial Rabbi Perrin quote that, “One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail”, you have the audacity to claim, exclusively, that it is Americans whom are paying the price for these imperial wars of resource dominance (not that they aren’t)? Have you no compassion for the murdered and maimed and the millions of innocent citizens of the countries whose entire habitat we have demolished, which will negatively affect the survivors for centuries?

    If, as you claim in your commentary, you have utilized the Christian worldview as a foundation for this article, I have no trouble believing you. For Christianity is as myopic as every tribal religion of the Abrahamic inheritance. However, I’m not sure that Jesus himself would have lacked such compassion upon a manufactured enemy, one that has been particularly demonized by certain Christian elements of this U.S. citizenry. There is plenty of complicity in these crimes of religious fervor to be handed out, as napkins perhaps?, in the partaking of the sacraments of blood and flesh.

    The principles that apparently guide you to write this article are nothing more than human sensibility and repulsion toward the actions of others that are deceptive and self-serving. That principle was present long before Christianity ever hit the world stage even in many species other than humans. I hope that you can learn to look beyond your own religious doctrine and mythology to discover the more elemental principles that do not rely upon dogma as the tree upon which these fruits can be borne. If not for the support of Christians, these wars of aggression as the Bush “crusades” could not have been launched. It is the religious demonization of a competing dogma that stirs the “spiritual” fear that justifies these atrocities. If you don’t believe me, try watching the 700 Club for a night or two!

    • Jonas E. Alexis  March 9, 2013 at 7:11 am

      Thanks for the comment. I have never denied the fact that millions of other precious people have suffered from the perpetual wars in the Middle East. If you follow the previous articles closely, I gave evidence after evidence that Iraqi families in particular have suffered from the Iraq invasion. Read for example “Israel and the Zionist Regime Sponsor Terrorism” and “Abu Ghraib and the Jewish Century.”

      Even at this present time, at least one million Syrian refugees have fled from their homeland and tried to find refuge somewhere else. My heart breaks when I read those stories.
      When I said that “our precious Americans are paying the price,” I was implicitly pleading with my fellow Americans who still think that the war was a good thing. After all, the Iraq war alone gave us a bill that is at least 3 trillion dollars. What do we get in return? Thousands upon thousands of our precious soldiers have died, maimed for a lie.
      I too was blind by the neoconservative madness, and I think it is fair to give others the opportunity to see the truth.

      I am a little puzzled by your last paragraph. Are you going to disprove Christianity by “watching the 700 Club”? Christianity is to be proven false because of Bush?
      It is Augustine who said long ago that you cannot disprove a philosophy by its abuse. If you are seriously to engage with Christians, you ought to know Christ’s teachings and disprove them.
      Suppose that you turn on your TV channel one morning and it is announced that one million police officers have been guilty of rape, sodomy, and money laundering. Are you willing to condemn the entire police force just because of that abuse?

    • Terry McKibbin  March 9, 2013 at 4:18 pm

      I’m not trying to prove anything, Jonas – simply making an observation about the massive support of worldwide aggression toward “other” (in this case a people of another Abrahamic religion) from many whom claim to base their doctrine and actions upon that of “Christianity”. Ultimately, there is only one person whom can really represent the “true” philosophy of which we speak. There is legitimacy in recognizing that some groups/organizations represent a philosophy based upon their claims, no matter how untrue they might be to the “pure” philosophy (a seemingly nebulous entity in the case of Christian doctrine). In the U.S. the large numbers of unquestioning supporters for all-that-is-Israel can be rightfully linked to the Christian belief system by way of the historical establishment of Christian zionist prophetic interpretations, in my opinion, whether or not such supporters may be viewed by others as thinking or acting abusively of that same philosophy. It is only an abuse through very subjective reasoning, methinks.

      I must say, that I have much respect for much of what you are saying in this article. Yet, I am unwilling to not challenge you in further recognizing that it is common and relevant to judge group-think and mass behavior based upon the players that we have before us, whom demonstrably represent particular belief systems, at least in part. Yes, it is true – not all Zionists want to rule the world, not all Christians want to help usher in the apocalypse, not all Muslims want sharia law within the cultures in which they dwell and not all Jews want to be served by the goyim. Yet, these characterizations cannot be dismissed so easily as simply impure interpretations of underlying philosophy.

    • Jonas E. Alexis  March 9, 2013 at 9:55 pm

      Yes, unconditional support for Israel is a Christian Zionist interpretation, but that in no way proves that they got that doctrine from Christ, or the Church, or Christian tradition. This irrelevant and detrimental movement did not start until the 1830s. As a matter of fact, the theological term for Israel in the New Testament is the “synagogue of Satan.” As I will argue in the summer, Christian Zionism had to deny Christ’s teachings in order to maintain the Zionist movement altogether. Point well taken about Christian Zionism.
      I also did not imply that “group-think and mass behavior” should be discarded altogether. What I am saying is that in order to understand a movement or philosophy, you have to judge it by its central tenets, and the abuse of the tenets does not necessarily mean that the philosophy is actually wrong. For example, would it be logical for me to look at Stalin’s behavior and magically conclude that “atheism” is wrong? I can disprove almost anything that way. This is called the genetic fallacy in philosophy and no serious person actually would use it to disprove any system of thought. Moreover, suppose that I pick up a comic book in a trashcan that says something like, “Plato wrote the Republic.” Is the statement wrong because I picked it up in a trashcan? Obviously not.
      “Yet, these characterizations cannot be dismissed so easily as simply impure interpretations of underlying philosophy.” Characterizations are indeed important, but we need to know what that philosophy actually is.

    • Jonas E. Alexis  March 10, 2013 at 12:13 am

      Great analysis, Yacht. John Hagee is a classic example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBO1xKvgyio. In this video clip, Hagee unequivocally declares that Christ did not come to be the Messiah. I have read the book and Hagee moves on to say that Jesus was taught in the Talmud! To be honest, this is the zenith of nonsense. The Talmud was codified centuries after the death of Christ. I will address those issues in the summer.

    • Terry McKibbin  March 10, 2013 at 8:52 am

      I think we are in agreement that the purity of a given specific philosophy is generally not held pure into the doctrines that are devised by groups of humans, even when built upon the original ideas of the pure philosophy (provided “pure philosophy” can, with veracity, be derived, communicated and understood in the first place). Thus, I would caution all writers, myself included, to use labels and titles of philosophies, religions, organizations, movements, etc., only after defining the terms as they will be used in the document.

      It has become extraordinarily apparent through the writings of brave truth seekers (and I count you among them) that many of the organizations, religious and otherwise, have been “co-opted” for deceptive purposes; whereby, philosophies are skewed, twisted, spun, even turned upside-down in order to control the debates, the news, the public narrative, and ultimately, human activity.

      I am of the opinion that we all are struggling within the human propensity for delusional thinking, mostly of an “innocent” nature. It is a struggle that, if truth is to be gained, requires extraordinary self-examination aided by the observations of others whom may have insights from overcoming delusions that our own mind has not. Gilad Atzmon is a representative of truth gained through the extraordinary process of honest and deep self-examination, in my opinion.

      Thank you, Jonas, for your responses to commentary. It provides an opportunity for discourse that is otherwise lacking. I’ve never appreciated sermons to which there were no forums for questioning and reasonable debate. I commend your efforts, though will remain a challenger to your Christian position overall, despite my own willingness to embrace principles of Christianity that are common to thinking, caring people of many belief systems.

    • Jonas E. Alexis  March 10, 2013 at 9:24 am

      I fully agree with you here, McKibbin.
      I have and will continue to do the best I can to respond to challenges to any article I have written and to important questions by readers. As the old saying goes, “iron sharpens iron.” For me if a writer cannot have some time to respond to challenges and important queries, then he has no business writing articles or writing anything. As a matter of fact, I have done the best I can to contact the people whose works I take seriously. In the process, I have interacted with people such as Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine (co-author of Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do they Say It?), Alan Dershowitz of Harvard, David Turner of the Jerusalem Post, Richard J. Evans of Cambridge (author of numerous books, including In Defense of History), Deborah Lipstadt of Emory (author of Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory), etc. Thanks for your assessment again!

    • Jonas E. Alexis  March 11, 2013 at 4:15 am

      LC,

      There are no “handy” references as to when the Talmud was written. They are all scholarly and exhaustive. For example, check out Jacob Neusner’s The Formation of the Babylonian Talmud: Studies in the Achievements of Late Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Historical Literary-critical Research; There are other ones available as well. I have documented this in Christianity & Rabbinic Judaism (vol. I). The only “handy” material that I was able to find is a YouTube documentary which also somewhat scholarly. I’m sure you’ll find it informative (you have to watch it in parts, 7 altogether): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogPXTUNjjTo.

  2. peter  March 8, 2013 at 6:44 pm

    Great article Jonas! Unbelievable how bush once said that Iran and Syria were establishing safe havens for “extremists” to attack Americans in Iraq when we now know that israeli snipers were shooting American soldiers. The same garbage they told us about wmd in Iraq are now being used against Iran. Gweneth Todd in the documentary “the woman who stopped the war” was spot on when she said “any time we question or criticize israel our media screams nuke.”
    Great stuff Jonas.

    • Jim W. Dean  March 8, 2013 at 10:52 pm

      We also know that Bush/Cheney were running MEK terrorists operations against Iran our of their base in Iraq. So what did we expect Iran to do…nothing??? Was it not in their best interests to ‘remove the threat’.

      Part of the deal with Pakistan looking the other way as we and the Israelis ran operations from the Paki border into Iran…and they have absorbed 17,000 in dead so far…almost six 9-11s.

      This is totally stupid as it gives the Israelis full blackmail control over us any time they feel the need to use it. That one of the reasons for the stand down against really going afer their espionage operations here. In a ‘War on Terror’, they can claim it is stupid to waste couner intel resources on Israelis, as that would leave less to chase the real bad guys.

      Of course we know now the lid has been on the ‘war on terror’ guys for some time because they were not here. They had to be invented with all the sting operations. And then we had all the Fusion Center people sitting around on their asses looking for something to justify their budgets, and in jumped Morris Dees trying to sell his militia and crazy vet new fund raising program.

    • peter  March 9, 2013 at 12:42 am

      And this has gone on under most of our noses!
      I guess its not surprising. Seeing that we have had no mention whatsoever of Obama’s visit to happen on the 20th.
      I had no idea that iran has had so many casualties!
      I’ve only heard about scientists that have been assassinated. It’s plain and clear now that there has been a plan to push all into a “ww3”.

      I’m hopeful though that cool heads will prevail.
      Like another Jim said, “they have the guns, we have the people”
      Gordon reminded me of that one.

    • Jonas E. Alexis  March 10, 2013 at 12:24 am

      Here’s what gets me very upset. Saddam even offered to buy one million American-made cars every year—for ten years!—in order to bring some progress in Iraq. Iraq also allowed a number of things which are not produced by the media: priority contracts to U.S. health care; priority to U.S. factory equipment and U.S. Corporations; priority contracts in telecommunications; promised to work with the U.S. Oil Companies, etc. Iraq even agreed to cooperate with the U.S. to fight terrorism. You know the saying that if you tell a lie long enough, the people will believe it? By constantly repeating that Saddam had WMDs, the neoconservatives fooled the American people.

  3. Gary Walker  March 8, 2013 at 2:11 pm

    Very good Jonas. You wrote a lucid, and welcome article without mentioning Xtianity or any Kalam cosmological broadsides.

    Amen,
    Infidel

    • Jonas E. Alexis  March 8, 2013 at 5:34 pm

      Thanks again for reading the article. I would like to reiterate that I am what I am because of Christianity, and all the articles are written under the premise of a largely Christian worldview. To talk about the articles without seeing Christianity as the foundation is like talking about King Kong without the monkey. Simply put, we both have to agree here that if the articles are “good,” then the guiding principles upon which they are written cannot all be nonsense. At least some of them could correspond to reality as a whole. I think you should also agree with skeptic Michael Shermer who ridicules Christianity but at the same time finds that some of Christianity’s teachings have done some good in the world.

  4. DaveE  March 8, 2013 at 8:21 am

    Satan’s kids have always had a hard time deciding who is too Satanic and who is not Satanic enough.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login


TOP 50 READ ARTICLES THIS MONTH
From Veterans Today Network