Syria: Organized Jewry Organizing War
Pro-Israel and Jewish groups strongly back military strike against Syria - The Washington Post
Simon Wiesenthal Center calls for action against Syria
Adelson New Obama Ally as Jewish Groups Back Syria Strike - Bloomberg
AIPAC in Full Court Press on Syria - The Daily Beast
Jewish groups back Obama on Syria, but downplay Israel angle | Jewish Telegraphic Agency
Jewish organizations in US support Syria strike | The Times of Israel
Simon Wiesenthal Center calls for action against Syria
Andrew Anglin's Daily Stormer:
Top Israeli Intelligence Chief Confirms Israeli Interest in Toppling Syrian Government
Top Jew Kissinger Says Not Invading Syria Would Have ‘Enormous’ Consequences
Kevin MacDonald at Occidental Observer:
The Israel Lobby and the Organized Jewish Community Want Regime Change in Syria
How the media works: David Makovsky on the non-existent AIPAC 800-lb gorilla
Pat Buchanan: Just Whose War Is This?
Gregory Hood at Counter-Currents provides the most comprehensive analysis: Standing With Syria
- - -
By far the best indication of the poisonous nature of jewish power is the confused reaction of some patriots in the US military: Tea Party Troops Protest Syria Strike On Facebook, Raise Questions About Military Code Of Conduct.
Jews and jewish organizations are the driving force lobbying for US/European miliary strikes aimed at degrading/toppling the Assad regime in Syria. Their weaponization of the jewish narrative is blatant. The bottom line of all the jewish moralizing is that non-jews must kill and die in order to protect jews.
The mainstream jewsmedia is openly reporting on both the who and the why of this jewish drive for war. The White servicemen who will be doing the killing and dying sense something is wrong, but cannot properly identify what. They are disturbed at the prospect of serving inimical alien interests, but cannot accept that they already do.
Labels: jewish influence, military, syria, war
posted by Tanstaafl at 9/06/2013 02:00:00 PM
13 Comments:
Well, we'll just have to issue the Debster and Marvin Hier assault rifles and parachute them into Syria. If it's the Holocaust again surely they have a moral obligation to sacrifice themselves in order to prevent it, just like their grandfathers did in WWII. Oh wait, that's right, Jews cowered in the rear during WWII, allowing farm boys from Kansas and Mississippi to fight the Nazis, and as soon as those farm boys got home the Jews rewarded their sacrifices by immediately resuming genocide against them. Their casualty rates were far below their percentage of the population. Same in Russia.
And dear Rabbi Hier, there have been many genocides around the world since WWII, didn't Israel have a moral obligation to send in it's military to, say, Rwanda, the Congo, or Cambodia? At least a token regiment, surely? If not, why not. Make it an essay.
Coren and Pipes want to simply bypass Syria and hit the big dog, Iran.
The Buchanan article contained a piquant observation regarding the republican jewish coalition and its financier:
Sheldon Adelson, the Macau casino mogul whose solicitude for the suffering children of Syria is the stuff of legend
Indeed. While some may be capable of stoicism in the face of arab misery, neocon jews are not. Action must be taken:
The Action Alert stressed the moral threshold that has been crossed by Syria’s use of chemical weapons
Yes, breaching such moral thresholds should serve as the ignition for America loosing fusillades and losing servicemen. Which must leave jewish republicans with only one question: What's white phosphorous?
For those still wavering as to their own use of this moral threshold, the BBC article helpfully captions:
White phosphorus is extremely harmful if it comes into contact with the body
I think then I'll stop juggling bricks of it...and I also think that Israel is going to be in big trouble with the jewish republicans.
AIPAC Plans 'All-Out' Push for Syria Vote – Forward.com:
The pro-Israel group, having backed President Obama’s push to authorize military strikes against the regime of Bashar al-Assad, plans to dispatch more than 250 leaders and activists to lobby Congress starting early next week.
The hawkish group decided to double down on its support because it sees any sign of U.S. weakness as an invitation to aggression by other enemies of Israel, like Hezbollah and especially Iran, Politico reports
“History tells us that ambiguity [in U.S. actions] invites aggression,” an AIPAC source who asked not to be named told Politico. The source added the group will now be engaged in a “major mobilization” over the issue.
The activists plan to visit hundreds of lawmakers from both parties as Obama mounts an uphill struggle to convince Congress to give him the green light to punish Assad for a deadly chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds of civilians.
AIPAC normally doesn’t get involved with legislation that doesn’t directly affect Israel.
But its leaders joined a broad coalition of Jewish groups, including the Anti-Defamation League and scores of prominent rabbis, in pushing for the Syria measure.
Its help is sorely needed. Tea Party Republicans are expected to line up virtually unanimously against the bill. And liberal Democrats, including Jewish and black lawmakers who usually support Israel, are deeply conflicted.
Links taken from the comments at Mangan's Why war?
The Organized Jewish Community: Wall-to-wall Support for a Strike on Syria | The Occidental Observer
Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria - NYTimes.com
Obama's Syria War Is Really About Iran and Israel | The Nation
Syria and Rand Paul's Israel Problem - The Atlantic:
He has cast himself as a defender of the Jewish state, but his anti-interventionist stance puts him at odds with both the Israeli government and leading American Jewish groups.
Titus Didius Tacitus sums it up:
To recap: there is overwhelming evidence that has already been posted - and more accumulates all the time - that the Israel Lobby, organized Jewry, the population of Israel as measured by an opinion poll and Israel as a state wants war on Syria provided America does it, and this is the team trying to start the war on Syria - a war that those who want it generally say is for regime change, and that should be followed by war on Iran, also implicitly or explicitly for regime change.
Nobody else is interested. The war is not a popular idea with or in the perceived self-interest of any politically powerful constituency.
Organized Jewry as a united mass, and only organized Jewry, is publicly pushing for America to strike Syria.
U.S. Jewish groups use Holocaust guilt to push for Syria strike, by Mairav Zonszein, +972 Magazine, 5 Sep 2013:
Beyond the fact that it is problematic at best and hypocritical and deplorable at worst for American Jewish groups to insist on the moral need to act in Syria – while continuing to be complicit in America’s active support of Israel’s 46-year military occupation that exacts daily human rights violations – my question is: why aren’t these American Jewish leaders interested in being a part of a debate about what kind of strategy will actually be effective in Syria?
It would be one thing if American Jews kept it as a condemnation of civilian suffering – but since they are going the policy route, why express support for military action without actually enumerating how it will be effective? A policy decision on American military action in Syria cannot be justified by an analogy between Syrian suffering and Jewish suffering during the Holocaust. The massacre of innocent civilians by their own leader is bad enough and the whole world doesn’t need to have it compared to Jewish suffering to know it’s f–ked up. Do they really believe that by using Holocaust guilt they can justify an American strike on Syria?
By using the Holocaust analogy, American Jews are not only excluding themselves from a genuine debate about what an effective American strategy in Syria could be for the U.S. and for Middle East stability, but are also making it clear that as Jews (and by extension, as regards Israel as well), they have a special status – the status of eternal victims and thus an authority on what is moral and when military force is just.
"As a jew, I think what organized jewry is doing is bad for the jews, because holocaust."
Jews invoke the holocaust to end a debate, or at least shift the basis for it to "what's good for the jews". When jews invoke any aspect of their persecution narrative, or even their mere jewishness, it's clear they expect that it A) serves as a claim to supreme moral authority for themselves, and B) serves to exclude anyone who disagrees with A.
This is how all "debates" work, at least within the boundaries of the jewsmedia. This is what makes it the jewsmedia. It's not "problematic", it's a problem. The jewish problem.
Can someone explian to me why it is that a jew Greenwald and the Rothschild owned "the Guardian" newspaper leaking the Snowden NSA information?
Why was British military intervention in Syria defeated by the "incompetence" of the jewish communist Milliband?
Why is the jewish owned media promoting Putin as a statesman and the jewish puppets Obama, Kerry (Kohn),and Clinton as inept fools?
There seems to be a deeper game being played here and for the life of me , I can't figure it out.
This seems to be the reason for the defhttp://aangirfan.blogspot.com.br/2013/09/russia-shot-down-two-us-missiles-fired.htmleat in the British Parliament.
Bernard-Henri Levy complains about The Dictatorship of Public Opinion on Syria, at The Daily Beast:
François Hollande was elected for five years; Barack Obama for four.
Soon enough they will have to account for their actions to their country and to history.
But for the time being they have but one duty: to deploy the means that, in their soul and conscience, they believe necessary and appropriate to halt the chaos that would be engendered by impunity offered to Bashar al-Assad, who, the commentators often fail to note, is tied to the ayatollahs’ Iran, to the Muslim Brotherhood of Hamas, and to the terrorists of Hezbollah—in short, to the planet’s most truly radical Islamists.
For their part, the demagogues and other practitioners of political spectacle also have but one duty: to respect the constitution, the law, and the principles of republican democracy.
The jewsmedia supplies the most glaring demagoguery and spectacle by giving soapboxes to hyper-jew gasbags like Levy, who toss words around in whatever nonsensical combination they think might serve the best interests of jews or Israel, all under the ridiculous pretense that they care about anyone or anything else.
As part of this latest rave Levy applauds De Gaulle's betrayal of the Pieds-Noirs.
This one beats Noah Rothman by a day.
Former defense minister calls Syrian war 'holocaust', The Times of Israel, 21 August 2013:
Amid reports of a devastating chemical weapons offensive in Syria, Labor Party MK and former defense minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer on Wednesday called the ongoing civil war there “a holocaust” and accused the international community of indifference to the Syrian people’s suffering.
. . .
The former defense minister went on to claim that the international community, rather than deal with the Syrian situation, was fixated on criticizing Israeli policies.
“Syria is using chemical weapons — there’s a holocaust going on there now — and the Europeans only have time to hit us [Israel], and the UN only has time to issue decisions against us,” he continued.
“It’s just a disaster what’s happening. Listen to me: It’s a holocaust, simply a holocaust, it’s just terrible,” he said.
Rothman expressed the same sentiment for the "benefit" of the goyim who don't follow the Israeli media and the antics of Israeli politicos.
"gasbags like Levy, who toss words around in whatever nonsensical combination they think might serve the best interests of Jews or Israel, all under the ridiculous pretense that they care about anyone or anything else."
Classic Tanstaafl.
Off topic.
Tan: "As part of this latest rave Levy applauds De Gaulle's betrayal of the Pieds-Noirs."
In Algeria, the National Liberation Front (FLN) lost the military fight but won the political fight. Jewish help must have been crucial. As a result, most Jews had to leave Algeria along with the French in 1962. So, in fact, during the independence "war", Jewish activists didn't even defend their own Jewish interests. They simply took sides against the Europeans.
The Counter Currents article says that "it was the policy of the OAS [the anti-separatist insurgents] from its beginning to its end that Algerian racial and cultural problems could be settled only by the complete integration of the TEN MILLION Algerian Arabs and Berbers into the French community."
They must have been crazy. The Algerian population is now 38 MILLION, not counting a few million of them who live in France. The Whites should have tried to carve out a separate section of the Algerian territory for themselves.
I like what the Counter Currents article says about De Gaulle and the Jews: "he was preparing to do the bidding of the men to whom he owed his position: the small nucleus of Jewish “advisers,” media barons, and other assorted wirepullers who called the tune in France and the rest of the Western world".
French nationalists are not very smart :
- Some of them thought they should try to integrate the Arabs into the French population.
- They didn't know about the Jewish problem.
- They thought that De Gaulle was on their side.
But I'm beginning to think that De Gaulle himself was a moron. I've read a letter written by him in June 1945 to his minister for justice P.H. Teitgen, who was in charge of purging the French "collaborators with Nazi Germany". In that letter he outlined what he thought should be France's immigration policy :
a) Regarding ethnicity, restricting the influx of Mediterraneans and Orientals who for half a century have deeply changed France's human structure. Without going as far as using a quota system, as in the United States, it is desirable that the priority be given to Nordic naturalizations (Belgians, Luxembourgers, Dutch people, Swiss people, Danes, Scandinavians, Icelanders, English people, Germans, etc.). (The first words in French: "a) Sur le plan ethnique, limiter l'afflux des Méditerranéens et des Orientaux...").
If that was his ideal, he should have worked with Hitler and Pétain, not Churchill and Roosevelt. And above all, he should not have surrounded himself with Jews.
NEW Blog @ (The Despicable Ones)!
✡ ✈ ▌▌ http://thedespicableones.blogspot.pt/ ✡ ✈ ▌▌
Post a Comment
<< Home