July 25, 2006

BERKELEY ASSMONKEY BLAMES RADICAL ISLAM ON ISRAEL


This imbecile Steve at Digitally Deranged has finally snapped.

Please feel free to go his blog and check out his post "How Israel Creates Its Enemies and Cultivates Militant Islam" And don't be shy to leave comments. If I didn't know he was serious, I would have thought it was from the Onion. Note the word "Militant" to describe terrorists. He might get a job at Al-Reuters, or AP (Arab Press) if he keeps it up.

Lets see, he starts by talking about how he hates Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah but say says "I place the blame for the creation of these entities on the nation-states which occupied, destabilized, and impoverished the societies in which these ‘movements’ where created."

"Israel bears most of the blame for the creation and expansion of militant Islam. Not content with occupying Arab lands and leaving the Palestinians their consolation prize, the West Bank, militant Israeli’s began settling in the last refuge of Palestinians."
Arab lands? What about all those wars that the Arabs started? I don't think he would make it as a history teacher. OK, maybe he could head up the history department at Berkeley or Dearborn U.

He is upset that Israel didn't view suicide bombers as a sign that the Palestinians just wanted a peaceful existence next to Israel. It seems that he thinks that Israel was just a bunch of bad mindreaders and child psychologists.

Ah, he is worried about the long term affect this will have on the assmonkeys. It will create more hatred.

My guess is every day Israel exists, war or no war, assmonkeys are taught to hate Israel regardless.

It is time for Israel to finish them off. Pulling out didn't work. Hezbollah spent the last six years stockpiling arms while Lebanese "innocents" just watched them and didn't complain.

In fact, has anyone heard the Lebanese plead to Hezbollah to release the soldiers and stop being babies.

Please go to the site, and read the entire article and then leave a comment. Thanks.

Best line by a commenter so far(by commenter named Hmmm): "You are treating Muslims like they are sub-human molested children incapable of demonstrating any responsibility. You excuse any violence as “resistance” against the occupiers without even a mentioning what led to the occupations in the first place.+

33 comments:

  1. You are indeed a study in contrasts, Bacon eater. Nonetheless, I appreciate your sense of humor, and, most importantly, appreciate the fact that you hate the filthy moslem scum. I certainly do not share your views on God and Judaism, but I am glad to see that, for whatever reason, you have a strong sense of Jewish nationalism.

    I was a bacon-eating, fire-breathing, irreligious Zionist-hawk, too, for most of my life. Of course, after becoming religious the Zionism only grew stronger, and as I look back I realize that the Zionism was what kept me connected to being a Jew when all other observance was disregarded. In other words, I can understand your views even though I am now on a very different path.

    Stay true to Israel and don't give an inch to the moslem filth, my friend.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maybe if you read this you will understand why I support Israel.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Some very good points, and some that I obviously do not agree with at all. I will choose to stick with what we do agree upon: Israel is for the Jews, and the Pseudostinians can all go f-ing die.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lets see Bacon when did the intifada begin? The 1980s when Israel began large scale expansion of religious settlements into the West Bank, the refugee camp of the Palestinians.

    If I'm guilty of not placing enough responsibility on the Palestinians, you're guilty of not admitting that people in this world are sometimes not in a position to appreciate your latte-drinking, air conditioned, insulated house, perspective.

    You quote that individual on child molestation. Well here's a question for you: If you molest a child, are you surprised they become a child molester themselves? Did they really have the same choice as you, Mr Bacon, on whether or not to become a monster?

    Maybe you should think about how the Palestinians live, while you sip your latte. Israel built its legitimacy on force, don't blame the Palestinians for using the same approach.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steve,

    Attacks on Jews in "Palestine" did not start in 1980s. Nor did they start with the establishment of Israel.

    I tried to outline the order of events here.

    ReplyDelete
  6. shlemazl - your outline of events is missing so much, it's almost laughable. First of all, why start with Emperor Hadrian? Pompey killed more Jews than Hadrian, and he conquered the Jewish State. Secondly, you state "Crusader kingdom of Jerusalem established" what does that mean? Christian domination of Jerusalem! When Muslims do it, it's an attack on civilization, when Christians do it, its one sentence. Hows that for bias?

    Thirdly, you talk about "the area" being apart of the Ottoman Empire. But you don't talk about how the Ottoman's disolved and how every other part of it nationalized except Palestine, you don't talk about how the British mandate was established, or how the mandate by the League of Nations required that the consent of the people be obtained before any further colonization. Further, you don't discuss how the current Israeli boundaries are far beyond the original UN mandate, particularly after 1967. Thats irrelevant to your thesis, along with the capture of East Jerusalem.

    You completely misinterpret the 1939 White Papers, providing no excerpts for your readers as to what it predicted if a Jewish State was established without the consent of the inhabitants (arabs). Further, you discuss the intifada (which began in the 1980s) along with a 1930s timeline.

    You do honestly mention that the creation of Israel increased anti-semitism, rather than diminish it by pointing out the expulsion of Jews in Arab lands after the expulsion of Arabs from the newly created Jewish lands.

    I suggest you re-write your history to be less selective in its storytelling.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Steve, the point is they are not molested children. But you are brainwashed to believe that they are.

    And before the intifada how many wars were there? I don't buy your selective history. There was a conflict ever since Israel was born. The West Bank is just a smokescreen. All you have to do is acknowledge Hezbollahs and Hamas' ultimate goals. And they haven't backed down, even when they had a golden opportunity to, even when they were denied foreign support after Hamas won the election.

    You are such a brainwashed child Steve.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Steven,

    As BEAJ says, my point was that attacks on Jews did not start in 1980 or 1947. First Arab pogroms of Jews took place in 1920s and there hasn't been a year since then without terrorist attacks on Jews.

    Thank you for reading the "brief history". I am more than a little suprised with some of your comments.

    You say: "First of all, why start with Emperor Hadrian? Pompey killed more Jews than Hadrian, and he conquered the Jewish State."

    The answer is that I decided to start from the point when a Jewish national home in Judea was temporarily extinguished. Pompey's subjugation of Judea wasn't the first or the last time it happened, but Pompey has not expelled Jews.

    "Secondly, you state "Crusader kingdom of Jerusalem established" what does that mean? Christian domination of Jerusalem! When Muslims do it, it's an attack on civilization, when Christians do it, its one sentence. Hows that for bias?"

    Check out the title of my "brief history". It's not about Cursaders. Have I ever referred to a Muslim "attack on civilization"?

    On "Ottoman Empire", I don't understand the reason for analyzing the relationship bettween the Empire and its fomer parts. A number of them fell under LON mandate at first, not just the territory that later became Israel.

    "you don't talk about how the British mandate was established". Yes I do. What else do you want me to say?

    "the mandate by the League of Nations required that the consent of the people be obtained before any further colonization". I don't believe the Mandate said this. Please provide me with an exact quote.

    "Further, you discuss the intifada (which began in the 1980s) along with a 1930s timeline." I DO NOT!

    "You do honestly mention that the creation of Israel increased anti-semitism" I DO NOT! Only someone who is seriosly screwed would say something that you are putting in my mouth. For goodness sake, do you remember what preceeded the establishment of Israel?

    "I suggest you re-write your history to be less selective in its storytelling". I will be happy to do so if someone were to point out my mistakes ACCURATELY.

    ReplyDelete
  9. BEAJ - I completely agree with you Bacon, there were a lot of wars to create a country that never had the consent of the inhabitants living there. You're only argument to defend yourself on this point in the past has been that they "didn't own the land" well shit Bacon, it went from being under the Ottoman EMPIRE to the British EMPIRE so the people never got a damn chance to exersize their nationalistic sentiments along with the REST of the world. And you wonder why a place that never nationalized would unify under religious sentiments? Any clues started to come to your head? HMMM?? Like maybe if the Middle East had NATIONALIZED like the the rest of the worlds empires, the identity politics of the people there would not be so militantly religious. Hence my original point, the denial of a nation to the Palestinians accelerated militant Islam, and thus promoted the very thing Israeli's claim to be acting in opposition to.

    Shlemazl - Ok fine, you start with Hadrian, ignoring Pompey for your own reasons, but what about Justinian? He killed more Jews than Hadrian. Between the Romans, and the Nazi Germans, the west has killed FAAR more Jews than any Muslims. In fact, the Pact of Umar crica 635 AD protected Jews living in Egypt. I'm not saying that Jews were treated well by anybody in the Medieval ages, but I am saying you're being VERY VERY selective in your history, and it doesn't fairly critisize any other world civilization BUT arabs and muslims for being anti-semitic. And in the twentieth century, europeans killed way more jews than any muslims.

    "On "Ottoman Empire", I don't understand the reason for analyzing the relationship bettween the Empire and its fomer parts."

    THATS why you can't understand the Middle East my friend. Unless you understand how the Ottoman Empire collapsed, you really don't have any idea why nation states and conflicts formed the way they did. WHY were nations created they way they were? Israel was mainly established as a buffer between French Lebanon and British Egypt, and it was established to act as a British proxy after their pullout. If the UN had completely taken over, the British believed they would lose control over the region THAT was their original intent. You talk about the MacMahon correspondance, and the Balfour declaration, but not the real motives behind the actors. You have a two dimensional history here.

    And in response to your 'confusion' regarding my comments try this:

    ""Further, you discuss the intifada (which began in the 1980s) along with a 1930s timeline." I DO NOT!"

    ----- You DID my friend, you called the 1929 riots an intifada "That "intifada" also started over false claims relating to Al-Aqsa Mosque." That came AFTER, a long time after.

    Further, your You state explicitly that after the creation of Israel, "Jews left Arab countries following centuries of discrimination under the system of dhimmitude for the following reasons - escalation of anti-semitism associated with the nationalist movement which accompanied independence in the Arab world;" Thus you still stand corrected.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You're only argument to defend yourself on this point in the past has been that they "didn't own the land"
    *******************
    No that isn't. Land was owned and in the region. 20% was owned by Arabs and 8% by Jews. The rest was unowned. My argument is that it was an unsovereign region, and just because a majority existed in the region doesn't mean the rest of the land belonged to the majority.

    There was an attempt to nationalize the region. That was the Partition. The Arabs rejected it. The Arabs couldn't handle 400,000 people living where a Jewish majority existed in 1947, that would be placed under a Jewish government.
    Nobody had to move or be displaced. That was the choice made by the Arabs.

    And yes, demographies change even in sovereign countries, so why can't they change in non sovereign lands, such as the Palestine region from 1880-1947? Are you against migration? Should Arabs be sent packing in North America? I don't really want them here, and I am a native Canadian.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mad Zionist, I think your solution would be best for the future of mankind.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This whole debate over who slapped who first is pointless. Violence has been around forever. I don't think the jews alive today really care what roman emperor did what to them thousands of years ago. If the muslims did care, I doubt enought of them would even know what parts of history to care about, considering the literacy rates of that demographic.

    On a side note, thats why the danish cartoons caused so much trouple. People right thousands of articles critical of islam, and we have television and radio personalities that do the same. So why didnt these kind of riots start before? Because even if articles and translated newscripts were passed around not enought muslims would have been able to read them. But, pass out a couple of pictures and suddenly they all have an objectionable opinion about what goes into western newspapers.

    Discussion will not settle the conflict, thats obvious from the 50+ years of debate that has been going on without ending the conflict. This will only end in blood. And personally if it has to end that way I'd rather the Israelies win. Because the muslims represent an ideoligy that wants to conquer the world so they can subjegate, kill, or convert everyone not like them. So far the only thing the jews want is a nation to call their own, and they have been attacked a hell of a lot more than they have been attacking.

    ReplyDelete
  13. random--

    It isn't a cycle of violence, but an arrow of violence with a conscious purpose behind it. Hamas, the Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad will not stop until every Jew living in Israel is dead.

    steve--

    Removing the settlers is one mistake on a very long list Israel has made lately. They served as a buffer between Israel and its barbaric neighbors, and removing them has compromised its security.

    ReplyDelete
  14. BEAJ - The Jews were NOT a majority until the war of 'independence' in which many arabs fled their homes in Israel proper.

    "And yes, demographies change even in sovereign countries, so why can't they change in non sovereign lands, such as the Palestine region from 1880-1947?"

    Fine. Support the right of return for Palestinian refugees. When the Israeli people protest it could destroy their nation, I'll just repeat that load of crap.

    jason - you're more extreme than Ariel Sharon. How does it feel?

    random - Firstly, no serious public policy analyst would ever state "this can only end in blood." In that respect, you've revealed yourself to be merely an armchair commentator. Historically, conflicts like this have gone on for centuries, that doens't mean they will never end, or that they will end. Further, its not a cultural battle, there are real water, land, and security issues to be resolved. Talk about those and you can have a constructive discussion.

    Lastly, Israel hasn't really changed its policy of "legitimacy through force" in 60 years. You act like Israel has been trying the diplomatic, humanitarian route and its only NOW resorting to violence. If anything, the cycle of violence DEMANDS a change by one side or the other. And since you think so highly of Israel, how about they start?

    If Palestinians are nothing but barbarians, along with their other arab cousins, then you can't blame them for acting violently. On the other hand, if Israeli's are so civilized you can do exactly that. Why the double standard????

    I would think you wouldn't want to put Israel up to a higher standard than its arab neighbors? But thats just me.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Steve,

    We seem to be going around the circle. Please DO check out the title of my article. It is not called "who hurt Jews most". It is about Arab-Israeli conflict and its origins.

    Therefore I have real trouble understanding your point that "I'm not saying that Jews were treated well by anybody in the Medieval ages, but I am saying you're being VERY VERY selective in your history, and it doesn't fairly critisize any other world civilization BUT arabs and muslims for being anti-semitic. And in the twentieth century, europeans killed way more jews than any muslims." Of cause I am being selective! I am trying to stick to the subject!

    "THATS why you can't understand the Middle East my friend." I do so like being patronized. Please do it again!

    That is coming from someone who can't understand that 1928 is not equal to 1980s even though I did call the 1929 riots intifada which also started over Al-Aqsa Mosque.

    I did say "escalation of anti-semitism associated with the nationalist movement which accompanied independence in the Arab world". I did not say "the creation of Israel increased anti-semitism". I do not "stand corrected".

    ReplyDelete
  16. Steve, how many times do I have to go over this with you? Look up partition in Wikipedia. You will see that the Jewish state was carved out where 550,000 Jews existed and just over 400,000 Arabs existed. So a Jewish majority did exist there prior to 1948. And no, the only Palestinians who have a case for returning are those who have a land deed. You make bad decisions in life, you pay for it. No do-overs.

    It has been 58 years, those originally involved are dead or in old folks homes. I can't believe they are still whining over their bad decisions.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I would think you wouldn't want to put Israel up to a higher standard than its arab neighbors? But thats just me.
    *******************
    Yeah Steve, anyone who knows anything already does. Even you. You think Israel must act much more responsibly than the babies who want to murder them.
    If the Arabs had their weaponry and the Jews had the Arab weaponry.........there wouldn't be a living Jew in the middle east.

    Israel is defending itself from assmonkeys, and you are nothing but a terrorist apologist and enabler. Screw yourself Steve.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Random, the point of the Dhimmiwits post isn't who slapped who first, but he is apologizing for Jihadists by saying the Joooooos actions were responsible for Radical Islam. He is pathetic and an enemy to the civilized world.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Israel is defending itself from assmonkeys"

    You should truly be a statesman Bacon. With insights like this, its a wonder that there isn't peace in the Middle East. You are so very reasonable.

    Shlemazl - the REASON its important to differentiated between the 1929 riot and the word intifada is because the intifada of the 1980s was a largescale escalation in the conflict in response to the expansion of the settlements. That's where we saw the birth of suicide bombing as a serious resistance 'strategy' or whatever you want to call the wholesale carnage. Pretending like 1929 style violence and 1980 violence is in ANY way the same is a completel butchering of history.

    And what you fail to see is that you tie the increase in anti-semitism to the rise of arab nationalism, rather than the placement of Israel next to 300 million Arabs who made its capital one of the major Islamic spiritual centers of the Ottoman Empire, Jerusalem. Big friggin surprise it stirred up trouble.

    There is only ONE constant in this struggle: a) That Israeli's and Palestinians will continue to struggle to look at the conflict objectively and thus continue using the same violence begets peace strategies b) that anyone who points out the consequences of the Israeli occupation, will be titled a sympathizer, and an enabler.

    Sorry Bacon, but once again you resort to name calling to make a point you cannot establish rhetorically. Maybe you otta take one of those college classes on the Middle East you keep complaining about as being bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Steve

    Like I said this will only end in bloodshed, because of the beliefs of one side sustainded peace is an impossiblity. So the only way the conflict will end, is with the death of one or both sides. I never said anything about the timeframe in which this will happen, it may very well go on for centuries. The only way that this will end without bloodshed is if the muslim world gives up many of its beliefs, especialy about its right to rule the world. But how often do faithful expanisionist peoples simply give up on thier idea of sovereignty? Only when victory is acheived (such as the US westward expansion into Indian Territories under the flag of manifest destiny) or when those people are handed a complete and utter defeat (such as the Nazi's and Empirial Japan). The muslim world is a billion strong and is frequently getting away with terrorist attacks, the only thing that stops it from being a full out world war is the fact that the muslim world is divided into many nations, with different goals and power structers.

    I never said that Israel hasn't been violent, I said that they havn't been attacking, maybe I was unclear with my terminoligy. You may think that any use of violence is an attack, I consider an attack to be an act performed by the initiator of violence. After every peace treaty, after every cease fire, which group started the attacks anew? In almost evey conflict since and including Israel's formation it was the muslims that shot first.

    I never said the arabs are barbarians, I said they are largely illiterate, but that should not be confused with a lack of mental capacity. They are very cunning in both the way that they wage this war and in the way that they present this war to the world. Often the leadership of these terrorist groups and states are educated, but their education does nothing to dull their faith. Besides I never said you couldn't blame them for being violent, you said that. I say blame them, punish them, do whatever it takes to convince the rest of the world that these guys don't want peace, they don't want diplomacy, what they want is obedience plain and simple. Israel's violence is a response to aggression, I didn't realize that self-defense was supposed to be admonished by civilized society.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Steve,

    Jerusalem was never a "spiritual centre of the Ottoman Empire".

    As you are such an expert on intifadas, you may want to check when the Al-Aqsa Intifada started. I alluded to it because it was claimed that violance also started due Israeli plans for Al-Aqsa mosque, just as in 1929.

    The first Intifada, which did start in late 1980s was not charactarized by suicide bombings. Suicide bombings in Israel started in 1993, after Oslo peace accords.

    The word "intifada" means uprising and I don't see why the riots in 1929 can't be called "intifada".

    Have you ever read a history book on the subject?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Steve--

    It feels like I'm extremely correct. Someone like Netanyahu has a better handle on Israel's strategic situation than someone like Sharon, though I concede that Olmert has been doing a good job lately.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Steve, are you going to admit you were wrong about the Jewish majority in the Jewish part of the proposed partition?

    I have simple questions.
    If Arafat accepted the Camp David proposal would the Palestinians be
    a) much better off than today
    b) a little better off
    c) the same
    d) they would be worse off

    Had the Palestinians voted for Fatah in the recent elections, would the Palestinians be:
    a) much better off than today
    b) a little better off
    c) the same
    d) they would be worse off

    Had the Arabs accepted the partition, would the Palestinians be:
    a) much better off than today
    b) a little better off
    c) the same
    d) they would be worse off

    If the Palestinians dropped their arms a month ago would they be:
    a) much better off than today
    b) a little better off
    c) the same
    d) they would be worse off

    ReplyDelete
  24. Steve,
    "in the twentieth century, europeans killed way more jews than any muslims." Not for a lack of trying.

    People I use the term loosely like Steve are sickening. He attempts to make his point in a civilized manner even though what he is doing is justifying the actions of most uncivilized society ever known to man.

    If he were a Muslim women growing up in an Arab nation like Morocco he probably wouldn’t even know how to read a street sign or spell his own name.

    Sorry if I missed some points but I couldn’t read any more of his drivel.

    ReplyDelete
  25. BEAJ, great questionaire, but the Palestinians would never go for it as it would mean admitting they made a bad decision.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Steve is an arabist quisling who is so obsessed with his marxist bullshit that he ignores the reality that Islam is a terrorist organization. Of course, communism is a terrorist organization as well, so it's not surprising that he sympathizes with the moslem criminals.

    I've dealt with many "Steve's" in the past, and what I have learned is that they believe the filthy, ignorant, impoverished moslems are a better target for marxist indoctrination than educated Jews who largely rejected communism long ago. Because they see an "easy mark" in the moslem scum, they build a faux alliance with the intention of building mass recruitment for the communist movement. His kind is so transperent it's laughable.

    ReplyDelete
  27. zionist--

    What's hilarious is that when socialists team up with fundie Muslims, the socialists are always the first to get chopped off the revolutionary salami.

    Look what happened during the socialist revolution in Iran in 1979; I've read that Ahmadinejad executed many of his fellow socialist revolutionaries himself.

    Moonbats are dangerous for two reasons. One, they're very naive and too trusting of evil people. Secondly, they're extremely arrogant and will not accept any discordant feedback from reality. They see themselves as the Enlightened, the saviors of humanity, and as a result will not countenance any evidence that contradicts their vision of Cosmic Justice.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Jason,

    In other words, they are arrogant fucks who are often hoisted by their own petards.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Mad, I blogrolled you back, but I didn't make a separate category for you if you don't mind:)

    ReplyDelete
  30. The Globe and Mail is running a poll that asks whether your opinion of PM Harper has changed for the better or worse because of the pro-Israel position he has taken in the current Mideast crisis. Please vote ASAP and encourage ALL of your contacts to do the same. The poll is half-way down the page on the right under "Globe Poll" on http://www.theglobeandmail.com/

    ReplyDelete