antiwar censor-robot active - grrr!

Some keywords (hence the XXXs below) trigger the shunting of comment-input onto the 'moderation' queue; IF we knew THEN we could possibly avoid this annoyance. Of course, it's their right...

Update, 14Sep 08:51: Unfortunately, I overlooked "the Jews decided" in a Clarence quote, which triggered the antiwar censor-bot. But then some IMHO (un)democratic criminal person killed = deleted my input. You may read it for yourself and decide:

Input (to antiwar Raimondo We Beat the War Party - For now ... (re Clarence - aletheia exchange)):

The prime-crime (land/property theft by mass-murdering violence = ethnic cleansing by genocidal methods) is visible to all who look, as illustrated in the #-points above, along with means, motive, and opportunity etc.. Anyone is welcome to challenge anything with this advice: aletheia is dedicated to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and that truth to be exposed. I do my best.

Reviewing critical points:

From a book written in 1895-6, “The XXX-ish question persists wherever XXXs live in appreciable numbers. Wherever it does not exist, it is brought in together with XXX-ish immigrants.”

Observation: Wherever they go, they *cause* an hostile reaction. It's only natural, that they might seek relief. On the principal of 'prevention is preferred to cure,' one might expect relief to be sought somewhere *without* neighbours to vex, but no such cleverness. By 1905, the 'final destination' was chosen, but note: *Not* a 'land without people.' The vexing followed as night follows day (the natives were not only restless, but driven to rioting), the XXXs sought assistance by lobbying the British (lobbying = coercing, threatening, bribing etc., see Mafia-methods); result = the Balfour sell-out, 1917. That was obviously insufficient for Jabotinsky, ~1923: “only active retaliation would deter ... only ... armed force would ensure ...” = perpetual war (Sounds like Obama/Kerry; plus ├ža change). This was admitted and consolidated by Ben-Gurion(1936-39): “We ... are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending ... [they] own the land ...” Then add Plan Dalet/massacres (continuing sporadically to this day), and the rest is history.

Now, to JJJihad's «steal all "Judea and Samaria"» etc., which Clarence 1st *rewrote* as «It defies reason to claim "the Jews decided" everything. It flies in the face of the facts» and to prove that was no accident, Clarence then *reiterated* it as «i.e. that a small, scattered ethnic minority should be blamed for deciding the course of world events». Clarence demonstrates an active, if erring, imagination (and possibly megalomaniacal tendencies).

Given that neither of Clarence's rewrites were what JJJihad wrote, consider "straw man," "red herring" and "non sequitur" etc.. Clarence deploys fallacies along with bad words and attacks the messenger = "ad homiminem," another fallacy. This is not a surprise. Of course criminals lie, to do otherwise would be to self-convict. Note that along with lying, criminals are generally considered outcasts, and IMHO differ from normal, law abiding citizens so much, as to be considered ill (i.e. psychopaths). As the prime-crime is blindingly obvious (after circumventing the lie-cloud attempted disguise), so apologists must also lie, dissemble, obfuscate and generally attempt to deceive. Say "Hello," Clarence.

Briefly, to Clarence's own 'reason-defying' claim, consider that the ME countries on the WC7in5 list are all considered to be Z-enemies AND the US is working through that list, PLUS the US considers itself 'Lord of all creation,' THEN accusing Zs of "deciding the course of world events" is not at all far-fetched, even quite possible. The alternate thesis, that the US and Zs are only *coincidentally* on the same destructive, murdering for spoil (one soil, the other oil) path is disproven by the USS Liberty incident - where Zs mass-murdered US citizens with impunity, in the outrageous attempt to sink a US warship. The USS Liberty incident shows which is the tail and which the dog (recall Mafia-methods = coercing, threatening, bribing etc., add killing). But nevertheless, *the* substantial issue here is not who may run the world (or what a bad job they're doing), but the un-remedied Z-crime-scene; an entity illegally squatting on improperly alienated land has *no* legitimacy (and never did), and nothing the Zs do and/or their apologists say has any legitimacy either. Oh, and not so BTW, nobody may claim the right to defend stolen land/property; another deception bites the dust.


aletheia · less than 1 minute ago   
Your comment must be approved by the site admins before it will appear publicly.   

grrr! 10:59.

Update: 1hr later; comment-count up by one, but comment still not there...


a change to the idiot Abbott
 might mean emboldened censors
  or just the same old bigoted tax thieves

Silly me; tried again, censored again, here my input:

@Tom Switzer: "American credibility and prestige"

I made these notes as I read the article:

Obama sound-snips sounded weak and unconvincing

arab spring fomented ?% by NED, went violent ?% by CIA

no right to call for regime change

no right to call "red line" - sets false-flag bait

no 'smoking gun' on CW attack, *most likely* US-baited false-flag

the offer noCW=noSA (Syria gives up their Chemical Weapons, and US won't bomb them back to the Stone Age) publicised by Kerry's 'blunder'

"Moscow’s interest" vs. Zs' (Golan Heights; m4s++) + US' (WC7in5)


{Kerry: We won't attack ... if you do this impossible thing.

Syria: Oh, We'll do it.

Russia: They'll do it.

UN: They'll do it.

Kerry: S**t!}

"strict self-defence?" No, + UNSC *correctly* stalemated

US' true (criminal) motive = 'help' Zs steal more land; the road to Tehran goes through Damascus.

arms/$s from KSA + Qatar, jihadis from outside, many Libyan Al-Q

*not* US business; MYOB!

The mission?

see Iraq, see Libya, see Stone Age

prolong and exacerbate it?

~21Aug, new arms = 400 tonnes, perhaps 1000+, all to 'rebels'

Obama has been all over the place

"all over the place" = US rhetoric; see 'digestive-tract accident'

Prestige and credibility?

no US-attack (supreme international crime), no risk &/ embarrassment

UK&/US have coveted ME oil continuously since pre-WW1

one of the biggest problems is: "Say one thing, do another."

they try to disguise their true intentions with lofty principles, latest R2P,

.. but secretly pursue resources by force - as if it's not obvious?

secrecy is a mortal enemy of democracy

no more attacks, no more killing (to steal), no more war!

===== definitions added:

m4s++ = mass-murder for spoil, soil, oil

WC7in5 = Wesley Clark leaking Pentagon intentions: 'US to take out 7 countries in 5 years.'

In full:

Wesley Clark: «About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon ... "This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran."»

-=*end of submit*=-

Comments: What I write is a mix of truth = substantiable fact, and valid opinion based on same. If any are offended, it is most likely that such are part of some problem = are somehow negatively involved with some criminality which I happen to be condemning at the time. At any crime-scene, there are one or more perpetrators, possibly accessories, possibly apologists active, and any bystanders who, if they see the crime in progress and do nothing ('duty to assist victims'), are part of the group of more or less guilty participants. The only ones who may claim the moral high-ground are those who actively attempt to stop crime, and/or bring the guilty to justice.

AusBC censors refusing to publish valid commentary make themselves part of the guilty group.

PFBCs = publicly-financed broadcasters, like the AusBC.

It is the AusBC's task to fully and fairly inform the electorate; any deviation from that amounts to treachery, not to mention fraud + theft = taking taxpayers' $s under false pretences.