November 25, 2011
On Silverstein's Implausible Drone Explosion Story
Richard Silverstein at Tikun Olam recently wrote an odd story on an allegedly successful plot by the Israeli Army Intelligence against Hizbullah. The Israelis, according to Richard's story, let a bobbytrapped drone drop into south Lebanon where Hizbullah then took it to a big arms cache. The Israelis, days later, then blew up that drone and a huge explosion followed. His piece was widely cited in the Israeli media.
I believe that the story, which was provided to Richard by an unnamed Israeli source, is not true but either simply a gone-wild phantasy or an Israeli information operation probably to let the IDF intelligence shine in a good light and Hizbullah in a bad one.
Let's trace down the story which was actually two stories before Richard's secret source put them together into one.
On Saturday November 19 the Wall Street Journal reported:
On a recent Saturday afternoon, a radar operated by French United Nations peacekeepers picked up a pilotless Israeli reconnaissance drone crossing into south Lebanon. It was given no more attention than any of the dozens of other surveillance missions flown by the Israelis in Lebanese airspace each month.
But when the drone passed above Wadi Hojeir, a yawning valley with steep, brush-covered slopes, it abruptly vanished from the radar screen. The startled peacekeepers contacted the Lebanese army, and a search of the rugged valley was conducted in the early-evening gloom. Nothing was found.
The drone vanished from the radar screen. There are several possible explanations for this. The drone might have come down but there also could have been electronic countermeasures against radar observation, a malfunction of the radar or whatever one may think of. The search found no debris and no sign of a crash.
The Israelis have said nothing. Neither has Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group and arch foe of Israel. The peacekeeping force is now abuzz with speculation that Hezbollah may have found a way of electronically disabling drones.
A drone vanished form the radar for unexplained reasons and now there are speculations within the UNIFIL forces of why that might have happened. There are no facts other than that a drone vanished for radar and no drone was found, just pure speculations.
Notice that the Saturday report from the WSJ sets the timeframe of the incident as "on a recent Saturday afternoon" which means that it happened at least a week, if not longer ago, before the WSJ piece came out.
On Wednesday the 23rd an explosion happened in south Lebanon. The first report about it is from the Lebanese Daily Star:
SIDDIQIN, Lebanon: An explosion shook a Hezbollah stronghold near Siddiqin in the Tyre region of south Lebanon overnight, a security source told The Daily Star Wednesday.
The Lebanese Army released a statement Wednesday afternoon saying that the explosion was likely the result of a landmine or a cluster bomb left over from the July-August war between Lebanon and Israel in 2006.
Earlier Wednesday, the security source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the cause of the blast, which was heard shortly before midnight, could not be determined due to a heavy security blanket by Hezbollah that followed the explosion.
In its statement Wednesday, the army said it had searched the area but found no trace of the explosion as it “left no visible effects.”
Early in the day, local media said the explosion likely took place at a Hezbollah arms cache.
In a statement later in the day, Hezbollah denied that the explosion in south Lebanon was a result of an explosion at an arms depot.
Here we have an unidentified "security source" claiming that the explosion happened in some "Hizbollah stronghold" and that there was a "heavy security blanket" by Hizbollah so that the site could not be viewed.
But the Lebanese Army says just the opposite. It could search the area and found nothing. Local media rumor about an "arms depot" but Hizbullah says there is none.
Further into the Daily Star story:
Four Israeli warplanes were spotted flying over Siddiqin at around 10.00 a.m. and patrols by the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon were active in the area. A UNIFIL helicopter could also be seen flying over the village.
A spokesman for the U.N. peacekeeping force said UNIFIL had heard about the explosion on the news.
"We have no information at the moment. We are checking this report," Andrea Tenenti told The Daily Star by telephone.
Israeli warplanes flying over south Lebanon, despite that being in breach of several UN resolutions, is unfortunately nothing unusually. It happens daily. What is of interest here is that patrols of UNIFIL were in the area and they had seen, and heard, nothing at all.
Now comes Richard's secret source, with a tale that somehow pulls the two above stories together which lets Richard write an: Exclusive: Israeli Military Intelligence Caused Massive Explosion in Hezbollah South Lebanon Arms Cache:
Now comes an exclusive report from an authoritative Israeli source with considerable military experience, that IDF military intelligence (Aman) has out foxed Hezbollah by deliberately crash-landing a booby-trapped Trojan Horse drone in southern Lebanon.
For over a year, Hezbollah has been attempting to discover how to jam the ground signals commanding the drone so as to disable them in flight. When it discovered the downed craft, its operatives must’ve crowed that they’d finally discovered the key to success. This bit of hubris is how Aman drew Hezbollah into its net. Its soldiers dutifully collected the imagined intelligence trophy and brought it to a large weapons depot it controlled in the area. Once inside the arms cache, Aman detonated the drone causing a massive explosion.
Hmm ... - notice that the two incidents that Richard's source puts together here have happened at least 10 days, if not longer, apart. Would Hizbullah really take a somehow obtained Israeli drone into a "large weapons depot" in south Lebanon with UNIFIL patrols in the area and leave it there for ten plus days? Would it not rather immediately truck it into the much more secure Bekaa valley or into Syria for further evaluation in a specialized weapon lab?
Richard continues the story with pure speculation:
Given that Hezbollah is reputed to have many more missiles and more advanced models than it had before the 2006 Lebanon War, we can only imagine how serious this blow will be to the group’s war fighting capability. Hezbollah is known to possess some of the most advanced Iranian rockets (the Zelzal) in anticipation of possible use should Israel attack Iran. Given the size of the explosion, we should expect that a good deal of its weapons cache in the south has been destroyed.
The Daily Star headline is about a "huge blast" but the story itself only says "an explosion" and "the blast". There is nothing like "huge" in the story. From that and his source Richard somehow comes to an allegedly given "size of the explosion" that indicates to him that "a good deal of [Hizbullah's] weapons cache in the south" has been destroyed.
Where did he get that from? And does he really believe that Hizbullah would keep Zelzal missiles, which have a range of up to 400 kilometers, just a few miles from the Israeli border? For what? To attack Port Said in Egypt? Zelzal's could reach Tel Aviv even from Lebanon's norther border. Hizbullah keeping them in the south would be lunacy.
There is this video from the Israeli website infolive.tv uploaded on November 23 which quotes Richard's story and shows pictures from a quite big smoke column coming up behind of what looks like a telecommunication building. But the video put to the story does not show the relevant explosion. The video material is simply stolen from this video which was uploaded to youtube on November 2nd by MENA and is supposed to show an explosion that happened in Beirut on April 8 2007.
So where did Mr. Silverstein and his source get that "huge explosion" that alleged destroyed a weapon cache from? From hot air?
Yesterday the Daily Star brought a follow up story of the issue:
“At 9:45 p.m. Tuesday an explosion was heard in a forested area on the outskirts of Siddiqin,” the [Lebanese Army] statement said. “After the explosion a unit from the Lebanese Army visited the area and undertook a search operation all night long until Wednesday noon.
“However, the army did not find any remnants and the explosion did not cause any visible damage. Probably, what happened was a result of a mine or cluster bomb possibly dropped by Israel [in 2006] exploding.”
The Daily Star sent a reporter into the area and here is what he found:
Calm returned Wednesday to the village, situated near the southern coastal city of Tyre, even as gossip on the blast was rife.
Most residents testified that they hadn’t heard an explosion but a local man, Hajj Ali Fakih, said he had heard a “huge” blast come from a patch of woodland known locally as Al-Jabal al-Kabir, or Big Mountain.
Hezbollah operatives carrying high-tech communications equipment spread throughout the village and accosted The Daily Star, asking why its reporter was making inquiries related to the blast.
The army and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon sent patrols to Siddiqin, although the peacekeeping organization said that it had received no official word on the explosion.
“Following today’s media reports, we were in close contact with the Lebanese Army and until now we have not information to confirm that there was an explosion,” UNIFIL deputy spokesperson Andrea Tenenti told The Daily Star.
“We have 350 patrols a day and this is part of our area of operations so we do have troops there on the ground. We have no investigation at the moment.”
Nothing there we know of says UNIFIL, the Lebanese Army said someone heard an explosion, Hizbullah and most residents in the area said nothing relevant happened. Some explosion happened says an anonymous "security source" to the Daily Star and one lone man from the village.
A complicate Israeli intelligence plot destroyed a "large weapons depot" by purposefully letting a drone intentionally fall into Hizbullah's hands which then, at least ten days later, somehow ended up in said "large weapons depot" and gets exploded by IDF intelligence destroying the Hizbullah arms cache so that "a good deal of its weapons cache in the south has been destroyed" says Richard Silverstein based on his secret source.
Aheem. No Richard. I don't buy that. And I am quite sure that most other thinking people will not buy that B-movie plot either.
(BTW - could the "security source" the Daily Star cites be the same one that is talking to Richard?)
In the comments to his piece several of his readers doubt the story. One Johnboy especially takes it apart and receives, undeserved, some personal wrath from Richard who even calls him "rude".
Richard writes (November 24, 2011 at 12:36 AM):
For me, the report is about my source, whose reliability & accuracy is superb.
But how does he know that his source is right on this issue?
He adds (November 24, 2011 at 12:28 AM):
I wrote what I wrote based on the impeccable record of my source who knows what happened far better than reporters who weren’t eyewitnesses, came after the event, & never had access to the site where it took place.
But how would that "impeccable source" know that? Is Richard suggesting that his source was there at the event when it took place? If not why is that source more believable than a reporter on the ground? And how long is a source, any source, really "impeccable"?
Later I join in (November 24, 2011 at 1:09 AM):
Just to notice that this is the SECOND time a “secret source” is telling Richard that the Mossad was behind an explosion in an “enemy” country.
The first one was the recent explosion during a missile test in Iran.
It at least smells as if Richard is used here to launch such “information” that can then be quoted in the Israeli media.
Shortly thereafter I received an email from Richard, without a subject line and sign off, in which he calls that an "acid comment". Oh well ...
But what happened really here? I offered my theory of what happened in another comment at Richard's site (November 24, 2011 at 4:39 AM):
This is the second time I point out that something here (this and your assertions about the Iranian missile test explosion) smells of an information operation because it is the second time you make such claims. Both based solely on the claims of your “source” which is contradicted by official statements from other sides.
Any “source” that wants to manipulate will of course first feed some real stuff into an information distribution channel before inserting false stuff into it. That is just normal operation procedure for any information operation.
If that is the case here, you would not even know that you are used.
Israel's secret services are known for launching, often false, stories in foreign media. Such "foreign" stories then can be quoted by the Israeli media. These are usually stories that are somewhat military relevant and would otherwise not pass the military censors who sit in every Israeli news room. Despite being launched in foreign media such stories are made up and put out for the domestic Israeli public for self serving and/or political reasons.
It seems to me that Richard was in this case (ab-)used by someone for such a purpose.
But Richard does not like that theory. He rather sticks to his "impeccable source" and its quite implausible story, including the "huge explosion" which no one else has noticed. In another email he lets me know that he "would rather [have] you abuse me at your own site than at my own" and that my opinion on this "frankly [...] isn't worth a damn."
I'll let my readers decide on that last point.
Posted by b on November 25, 2011 at 02:00 PM | Permalink
Related: Debka claims that the recent Iran explosion was the result of Stuxnet or a new computer attack successfully penetrating the control software of the live missile, causing it to explode.
If so it would be a big floppy feather in the cap of the Stuxnet builders (NY Times).
From the Israeli "intelligence" site linked in the first paragraph:
1. Maj. Gen. Moghaddam had gathered Iran's top missile experts around the Sejil 2 to show them a new type of warhead which could also carry a nuclear payload. No experiment was planned. The experts were shown the new device and asked for their comments.
2. Moghaddam presented the new warhead through a computer simulation attached to the missile. His presentation was watched on a big screen. The missile exploded upon an order from the computer.
The warhead blew first; the solid fuel in its engines next, so explaining the two consecutive bangs across Tehran and the early impression of two explosions, the first more powerful than the second, occurring at the huge 52 sq. kilometer complex of Alghadir.
Makes me wonder ... why would a computer simulation be directly connected to an armed missile? Surely there is another way to demonstrate this. Also, why were 35 persons within range of the explosion?
More likely to me is that an infiltrator somehow triggered the explosion or somehow smuggled a bomb in or whatever.
Who would benefit from having us and others believe that the Stuxnet builders can blow up Iran's newest missiles at will ... hmmm.
Posted by: jonku | Nov 25, 2011 2:46:37 PM | 1
More likely to me is that an infiltrator somehow triggered the explosion or somehow smuggled a bomb in or whatever.>/I>
Or why not the even much more plausible assumptions that the Iranians just blew up a rocket on the test stand. Has happened regularly to the German scientist who first developed missiles and then to the U.S. and Soviet scientist who worked from the stolen patents.
Frankly - i do not believe that any sabotage was involved in that explosion in Iran. The Iranian reaction would otherwise have been different. They were quite open and accusing with those gunned down scientist. If they would suspect something with that explosion why would they not be open on that?
Posted by: b | Nov 25, 2011 3:28:48 PM | 2
Ah - no Richard. I don't buy that. And I am quite sure that most other thinking people will not buy that either.
Richard isn't trying to sell this story to the thinkers.
Posted by: Pyrrho | Nov 25, 2011 3:36:32 PM | 3
Debka or stories in the regular press that seem copied from Debka are as interesting as a bad spy novel. Or actually quite less. AngryArab makes regular fun of the IDF/Mossad propagandists and cleverly points that they increasingly sound like the fabulous stories created by the pathetic propaganda machine from the Arab regimes. There goes the supposed Israeli superiority.
Posted by: ThePaper | Nov 25, 2011 5:07:00 PM | 4
Richard Silverstein, like all Zio-centric journalists, is a master at cooking up lies and dishing them out to us. And because his lies, like all their lies, are such a hazard to our mental as well as physical health, the FDA should require that a health warning accompany anything they cook up and dish out to us -- something akin to this warning from The Partnership for a Drug-Free America (PDFA):
The Partnership for a Zionist-Free America (PZFA) has a nice ring to it. Now all we need is some seed money to get it off the ground.
Posted by: Cynthia | Nov 25, 2011 5:25:45 PM | 5
In this case, it looks like Silverstein is wrong. His 'source' seems to be have been exaggerating Israeli capabilities.
Posted by: alexno | Nov 25, 2011 5:32:27 PM | 6
I read the comment exchanges on Silverstein's blog.
He could be right, he could be wrong, but drawing attention to the possible holes in his story should not have elicited the sort of scorn that Silverstein hurled at those who disagreed.
Also, and more importantly, Silverstein seems not to understand that a source, someone who very well may be credible and respected, is not necessarily immune from planting disinformation.
Beyond that, his source may simply be wrong, as are all journalists from time to time.
But Silverstein seems not to understand those simple truths.
Posted by: sleepy | Nov 25, 2011 6:30:37 PM | 7
As one of the people referred to in this story I'd like to add my bit here, since I have been banned from Silverstein's blog.
The story promoted by Silverstein is this:
1) The IDF boobytraps a drone, then deliberately crashes it inside Lebanon
2) Hezbollah take their "prize" to an arms depot near Siddiqin
3) Whereupon the IDF triggers its boodytrap, destroying that arms depot.
A moment's thought will tell you that the story is book-ended by two "facts" which have to be established before Silverstein can draw a link between them:
1) An IDF drone crashed inside Lebanon
2) There is now the smoking ruins of an (ex)arms depot near Siddiqin
I appear to have committed the terrible crime of pointing out that there is zero evidence that either event actually, you know, happened....
The Wall Street Journal speculates on the crash of a drone based entirely upon the disappearence of a drone from a UNIFIL radar, and the journalist was professional enough to stress (several times) that this is pure speculation and rumour.
The Daily Star was fed a story that an arms depot exploded outside Siddiqin, but when they sent reporters to Siddiqin they found no physical evidence whatsoever, and only one (1) villager who heard a BANG!.
The Lebanese Army are adament that they scoured the area for the better part of a day and found... nothing.
UNIFIL simply utter their bewilderment at What The Hell Is Silverstein Talking About?
For pointing all that out I was abused, and then I was banned.
A: Silverstein appears to be obsessed about his "superb source", and therefore offended at the very notion that someone does not share his infatuation with The Mysterious Spook.
The only conclusion I can draw from all this is that Richard Silverstein is a very, very odd man indeed, if not downright creepy.
Posted by: Johnboy | Nov 25, 2011 7:56:18 PM | 8
Interesting thread. Particularly like Johnboy's sardonic contribution.
Being a hopeless cynic about any so called "facts" connected to Israeli claims, I can't help but wonder why there is any question about whether or not the drone story is bullshit.
Of course it's bullshit. I mean, hey, play the safe odds. Particularly if it involves anything that casts the Zionists as anything other than lyin' conniving treacherous hasbara drooling propagandists.
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Nov 25, 2011 8:18:10 PM | 9
Of course it's bullshit. I mean, hey, play the safe odds. Particularly if it involves anything that casts the Zionists as anything other than lyin' conniving treacherous hasbara drooling propagandists.
So very true indeed.
Posted by: Outraged | Nov 25, 2011 8:29:09 PM | 10
"For pointing all that out I was abused, and then I was banned"
What was better, the abuse, or the banning?
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Nov 25, 2011 8:34:26 PM | 11
"What was better, the abuse, or the banning?"
Rather depends upon your definition of "better", I would suggest.
At least when I was being abused by Silverstein I had the opportunity to point out that he has being abusive for no good reason.
Once he banned me it was impossible to point out to him that I was being banned for no good reason.
But by all means go and read the exchange, and then you can make up your own mind who was attempting to be civil, and whose shrill abuse amounted to a hissy-fit that combined hints of paranoia with dolloped-on illusions of grandeur.
Heck, if you agree with him then go and tell him. I'm sure he would appreciate the show of support.
Posted by: Johnboy | Nov 25, 2011 10:16:25 PM | 12
"Once he banned me it was impossible to point out to him that I was being banned for no good reason"
Don't misunderstand me, I'm on your side. I was subjected to the same brand of crap at Mondoweiss. Worse, emailing Phil Mondoweiss, and Adam Horowitz, asking for an explanation, I recieved no response as to the reason behind the banning. Pretty cowardly, if you ask me.
By far the very slimiest banning I've ever been subjected to was at The Washington Note, where I was scapegoated by Clemons, (putting the shut down of the comment section on my shoulders), when it was obvious that the shut down was actually the result of many regular commentors calling bullshit on his increasingly propagandized ass kissing essays designed to engratiate himself to the scummiest of the DC dirtbags and their media whores. He had to bring the blog down to an acceptable level of politically correct synchopantic prattle, and it was just impossible to do with a cadre of intelligent and informed commentors dogging his every essay.
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Nov 25, 2011 10:51:46 PM | 13
"Don't misunderstand me, I'm on your side."
Sorry, it was never my intention to imply either way.
I had originally wanted to suggest that people go their and make up their own mind i.e. if they agreed with Silverstein then to tell him, and if they agreed with me then to say *that* to him.
But on reflection I decided I didn't want to give any impression that I was drumming up a campaign against him, which is why I left the former in but dropped the latter.
So, yeah, if you agree with Silverstein then by all means let him know.
But if you don't, welllll....
Posted by: Johnboy | Nov 25, 2011 11:35:31 PM | 14
Maybe I'm being paranoid, but I can imagine a near-future headline that reads:
"Iran resupplies Hizbullah after arms cache destroyed"
Posted by: Dr. Wellington Yueh | Nov 26, 2011 2:00:37 AM | 15
"Maybe I'm being paranoid, but I can imagine a near-future headline that reads"
I don't think it really matters what the story is, because as far as Silverstein is concerned all that matters is that his source is whispering sweet nothings into his ears.
Oh, look, he admitted as much...."For me, the report is about my source, whose reliability & accuracy is superb."
That is an extraordinary claim to make, being little more than a Open Letter in which Richard Silverstein gushes up his uncritical devotion to his Mr Mysterious.
Posted by: Johnboy | Nov 26, 2011 2:35:41 AM | 16
Silverstein is being abusive of everybody at the moment, and banning large numbers of people. Probably he is sick or something; happens to all of us.
But I like his blog. He has good stuff, and he's at the front of the pack on Israel stories. Not always right, inevitably.
Posted by: alexno | Nov 26, 2011 5:08:49 AM | 17
"Would Hizbullah really take a somehow obtained Israeli drone into an ammo-depot in south Lebanon..."
Of course they wouldn't.
Even the Jews wouldn't be THAT stupid, although one can never be absolutely certain. And they DO like breaking records...
Hezbollah is a well-trained, combat-ready fighting force and everyone knows what happened to the undisciplined, every-man-for-himself riff-raff the IOF sent into Lebanon in 2006. It was a complete and utter debacle.
Imo this story is an ill-conceived attempt (by Silverstein - a lite Zionist) to take the minds of Israelis off the fact that Israel is a military nonentity whom no-one (outside Israel) takes seriously. His attitude to JohnBoy, and his email/blog exchanges with b, show, beyond a shadow of doubt, that his investment in this fairytale was FAR TOO PERSONAL. He made a weak case based on flimsy evidence and continued to defend it long after commenters told him what a crock it was.
In Oz, that kind of ideological myopia as referred to as "flogging a dead horse."
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 26, 2011 7:40:04 AM | 18
"I had originally wanted to suggest that people go their and make up their own mind i.e......"
I read two of Silverstein's retorts, and left it at that. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize the inflexible mind of an egotistical ass. I have no interest in going back to the site.
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Nov 26, 2011 10:12:04 AM | 19
I hate to say this. And I emphasize that I don't read Richard Silverstein's blog, but I suspect that a lot of soft Zionists act as gate keepers. To their credit, they are opposed to the Israeli right and they may be genuinely uncomfortable with what Israel has done to others. But they are still in favor of Israel's regional dominance. They just wish it were somehow more "benevolent."
Hence, their anger when called out. The fact t of the matter is, any fair solution will require a major change in the balance of power to Israel's disfavor (a powerful Iran, a well armed Hezbollah, a collapse of US backed Arab regimes, ESPECIALLY Saudi Arabia, etc) But when it comes to brass tacks, they are against all of that.
Posted by: Lysander | Nov 26, 2011 2:58:31 PM | 20
tried to send that some hours before but it didn't turn up, maybe too unstable connections today here from South Africa
"Or why not the even much more plausible assumptions that the Iranians just blew up a rocket on the test stand. Has happened regularly to the German scientist who first developed missiles and then to the U.S. and Soviet scientist who worked from the stolen patents."
b, why are you using the expression "stolen patents" wrt the fascist german missile program of the Wernher von Braun clique at Peenemuende and other facilites? Their papers, experiences, patents if existed at all, even them in persons have been obtained and captured by the US and Soviet Army forces at the end of the war, rightfully so, because the allies fought that bloody war to crash down the Hitler forces, stop the von Braun clique and many others from bombing England and other parts of Europe. von Braun and the likes were responsible for using forced labor and killing tens of thousand of concentration camp prisoners in their rocket building facilities down in the mountains in the middle of Germany. So what is "stolen" if the allies terminated that most inhuman program of developing missiles with the only purpose to deploy tons of bombs on other people heads???
I'm rather disgusted about the US and Soviet Union politics to employ these people later on for years instead of bringing them to a court of justice for the atrocities they committed.
Posted by: thomas | Nov 26, 2011 3:04:11 PM | 21
let us be more frank, silverstein's intention is to elaborate the myth of the stupidity & barbarity of both the arab & persian people. this form of racism is common, especially with the liberal left represented by either the guardian or libération
its task is to humiliate hezbollah because they humiliated israel by their resolve & combat
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 26, 2011 3:35:32 PM | 22
why are you using the expression "stolen patents"
Because the patents were stolen. They were owned by German universities, companies and individuals and were simply expropriated without any legal process. When a dictatorship loses a war does that really mean that universities, companies and individuals living under the dictatorship have to give up their personal rights after the war because of that?
BTW: To say the dictatorship used those to do evil things ignores that those who stole them did so to do evil stuff too.
Posted by: b | Nov 27, 2011 1:49:25 PM | 23
Flogging a dead horse, I know, but the latest news from the Jerusalem Post is that the IDF has now confirmed that the "ammo dump that was" simply... wasn't.
"The IDF has confirmed that there was not an explosion near the southern Lebanese
city of Tyre last week, as opposed to media reports claiming that a blast had
occurred.The reports had claimed that a Hezbollah weapons cache had exploded in
the area, but the IDF sent a drone over the village which did not detect any
indication of an explosion."
So Silverstein's story has now been debunked by:
2) The Lebanese Army
3) The Daily Star
4) The Jerusalem Post
5) The IDF.
No doubt Silverstein will insist that none of them carry the same gravitas as his "superb source" and, therefore, they can all be ignored.
Posted by: Johnboy | Nov 29, 2011 12:59:07 AM | 25
His latest musings on that seem to be fanciful speculation to avoid having to entertain the possibility that his source is wrong. I read through your dialogue with him on the original thread and I fail to see where you were being anything he claimed you had been. I think he has let the previous exclusive that generated interest in Israel and extra traffic go to his head, clouding his ability to simply read his own linked to articles which were enough to cast huge doubt on his reporting of the situation based on his source. To ban you for simply pointing that out speaks volumes.
Posted by: David A. | Nov 29, 2011 3:46:48 AM | 26
It is getting ludicrous, isn't it?
Silverstein's "source" told him that an ammo dump blew up outside Siddiqin.
The Lebanese Army says that this is bunk i.e. it looked, and it found nothing.
The Daily Star sends a reporter to Siddiqin, and not only does he say that it is bunk, he also reports that there are a lot of IDF and UNIFIL aircraft in the sky.
UNIFIL say that they have no evidence of an explosion.
The IDF say that their aerial surveillance found no sign of an explosion.
A sensible person would weigh up all those rebuttals and accept that the IDF *and* the Lebanese Army agreeing that this is bunk pretty much settles the issue i.e. this is bunk.
After all, when was the *last* time that the IDF and the Lebanese Army agreed on *anything*?
But as far as Silverstein is concerned that can't be correct i.e. the only possible explanation is that it's all part of a conspiracy involving
a) The Lebanese Army, and
b) the IDF, and
to pull the wool over his eyes.
Posted by: Johnboy | Nov 29, 2011 6:46:15 AM | 27
"I suspect that a lot of soft Zionists act as gate keepers." Lysander #20
ZIONISM is a racist, murderous and hate-filled supremacist philosophy adopted by the offspring of a genetically pre-disposed-to-psychotic-personality-disorders minor middle-eastern tribe whose ranks were swelled during the early middle ages by becoming the state religion of the Khazars who then dispersed throughout Europe when their Russian vassals had finally had enough of them and drove them out.
There is no such thing as a "Soft" Zionist.
Posted by: arthurdecco | Nov 29, 2011 8:13:41 PM | 28
Of course zionism is going to provide a refuge for racist extremists, just as any -ish.
But to argue from THAT to a claim that "There is no such thing as a "Soft" Zionist" is nonsense.
You only have to read any of the statements of Uri Avnery to understand that there are zionists who seek only a place in the sun for Jews - a Jewish National Home, in the true sense of those words - and utterly reject the notion that this necessarily means the subjugation or expulsion of The Other.
You are wrong, and you are wrong in a way that is as extremist as those that you oppose.
Posted by: Johnboy | Nov 29, 2011 9:56:57 PM | 29
b, you totally misinterpret the fascist missile program to say the least. it was an integral and very important part of their war, not an university exercise. How do you come to this? and if the Otto Hahn group had been successful with the development of the german nuclear bomb program they had quite possibly sent some nuclear warheads with these missiles to London or any other european enemy city.
btw, you not even mentioning the killings in the mountain tunnels - did that also belong to the university or company or individual program??? for organising, supporting or only benefiting from those inhuman conditions these institutions and people were rightfully disposed of all there assets after loosing that war; some of them responsible for the atrocities were even rightfully disposed of their lives. That happens if you support a war to rule the world and you loose
Posted by: thomas | Nov 30, 2011 3:57:03 PM | 30
@thomas - those who were deemed useful to the projects of world dominance of the winners were spared, and hired; Nuremberg was a farce and a disgrace
Give the Germans a break; I already said it in another thread - imagine a Nuremberg today against the Us, Israel and their western allies, staged maybe by the Chinese, with witnesses from Palestine, Vietnam, Iraq, Chile, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
the "absolute evil" thing is bulls**t; evil exists in many forms, and most of them aren't perceived as such by those who enact it (how many Eichmann in the West in the past 50 years? and how many this very moment?)
the west conceives itself as intrinsically "good" because it fought the "absolute evil"; and the Us has the self-assigned right to expose "absolute evil" in any opponent of its global dominance; Milosevic, Saddam, Ahmadinejad, Gaddafi - the next "new Hitler" is always right down the corner
come on, those patents were stolen and put to "good" use - period
Posted by: claudio | Nov 30, 2011 7:05:03 PM | 31
"You are wrong, and you are wrong in a way that is as extremist as those that you oppose." Posted by Johnboy
The truth is always extreme to those unused to hearing it, Johnboy.
Debate the contents of my previous post, or provide some truths of your own. I'd luv to read them.
Posted by: arthurdecco | Nov 30, 2011 9:43:28 PM | 32
claudio, its not about "give the germans a break". its about how we see our past, our history. b is german, I'm german (at least acc. to my passport, but I live and work on three continents). We have to acknowledge that May 8th, 1945 was not a "defeat" of us germans but was a liberation of us, through all the allied forces, although we were part of these "devil" forces of the Hitler regime, every single Wehrmacht soldier, every single university professor or teacher working f.e. in the missile project. So we don't have a single reason to complain about losing rights to some patents or losing property. The contributions the germans had to pay after the war were in no way close to what they destroyed and looted all over Europe, and you cannot pay contributions for the millions that have been killed by these combined forces of the regime and its people. Minimising these facts by just saying: "but the winners were also behaving badly in the decades afterwards" and f.e. comparing Eichmann with every other kind of mass murderer as you do is just plain revisionist and plays exactly into the tune of the new Nazis we have in germany and other parts of Europe, even in the former Soviet Union now.
Posted by: thomas | Dec 1, 2011 2:28:53 AM | 33
@thomas - you make some good points, plus the fact that you are German certainly gives you the right and the duty of a "special" self-criticism; I could answer that not being German, I feel the right and the duty of a "special" defense of the Germans; I mean, in the context of an assumption of responsibilities, everyone first of all has to criticize itself rather than the other;
but the point is, I don't see Nazism as a "German problem"; it is fully a European/western one; Nazism has become "special" because we forgot the context in which the events played, and started demonizing instead of understanding (just as we do against any "enemy of the west" today); Eichmann was not a muss murderer, he organized the train transport of the deportations, and was quite proud of the job he did as a servant of the State (see Arendt's "The Banality of Evil")
Nazism must be understood in the context of imperialism and racism as European phenomena rather than German ones (again, see Arendt, "The Origins of Totalitarianism", vol. I), plus the new industrial mass societies, plus the role of ideology and the invention of new collective subjects in the XIX century: Nation and Class
Zionism was born in exactly the same context, and with an analogous program: "do as the Germans" (and all the others): "one people, one land, one State", racial purity, and carve out a space in the European colonization and domination of the world;
plus, Germany had two problems the UK and France didn't have: a lot of poor jews (the rich ones never were a problem for anyone) and a lost war (and the need for a scapegoat)
It's not a problem of deflecting responsibilities from one western country to another, but to start asking ourselves as Europeans /westerners who we really are; demonizing Germany not only precludes this view, but indirectly glorifies the Us, Uk and Israel and gives them an eternal free pass to all the atrocities they commit
Posted by: claudio | Dec 1, 2011 3:19:16 AM | 34
one last note: Nazism isn't a "German problem" just as Israel isn't a "Jewish problem"; instead there is a huge "European/Western problem" we have to reckon with
Posted by: claudio | Dec 1, 2011 3:48:16 AM | 35
Um, he who is -something something-, cast the first stone ?
Unit 731 was a covert biological and chemical warfare research and development unit of the Imperial Japanese Army that undertook lethal human experimentation during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945) and World War II. It was responsible for some of the most notorious war crimes carried out by Japanese personnel.
Although most victims of Unit 731 were Chinese, other victims were American POWs, British, Russian, Korean and other nationalities.
After Imperial Japan surrendered to the Allies in 1945, Douglas MacArthur became the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers, rebuilding Japan during the Allied occupation. MacArthur secretly granted immunity to the physicians of Unit 731 in exchange for providing America, but not the other wartime allies, with their research on biological warfare. American occupation authorities monitored the activities of former unit members, including reading and censoring their mail. The U.S. believed that the research data was valuable. The U.S. did not want other nations, particularly the Soviet Union, to acquire data on biological weapons.
Some former members of Unit 731 became part of the Japanese medical establishment. Dr. Masaji Kitano led Japan's largest pharmaceutical company, the Green Cross. Others headed U.S.-backed medical schools or worked for the Japanese health ministry. Shirō Ishii moved to Maryland to work on bio-weapons research.
As part of the secret 'deal' for the 'data', the US did not prosecute any members of Unit 731 at the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal.
Those heathen, commie pinkos, the Soviet Union, prosecuted twelve top military leaders and scientists from Unit 731 and its affiliated biological-war prisons Unit 1644 in Nanjing, and Unit 100 in Changchun, in the Khabarovsk War Crime Trials. However, they also used the data they obtained ...
Or how about that jolly old chap 'Bomber Harris'.
The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.
...the aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive...should be unambiguously stated [as] the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilised life throughout Germany.
... the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories.
Mahatma Gandhi, when asked what he thought of Western civilization
I think it would be a good idea.
Posted by: Outraged | Dec 1, 2011 4:02:34 AM | 36
I was not questioning many of the facts or historical / ideological interpretations you are presenting, expect very sharply your "facts" about Eichmann. I'm sticking to the expression "stolen patents", and this has a very special meme (as you say today) in germany. It means they stole our land in the East (not we losing it because we started the war), they chased away our people (not them fleeing because they knew what they had to expect after years of maltraitment of the slav populations in the east of Europe); it means they stole everything from us, property, companies, people for reparations we had to pay, we were all so innocent, had nothing to do with Hitler and his small clique. That's what distinguishing me from any just "anti-american" sentiments; my "anti-US" sentiments are clearly based on their role in history, but their role wrt the liberation of Europe and Asia, together with the allies, I see it very sympathetic. I can also only tell you that everything "Bomber Harris" wrote and did was perfect in that situation of war; the only answer the german regime and its people understood on the long run.
Posted by: thomas | Dec 1, 2011 5:09:45 AM | 37
"Debate the contents of my previous post, or provide some truths of your own. I'd luv to read them."
Lysander made this statement: "I suspect that a lot of soft Zionists act as gate keepers."
You replied with a long-winded paragraph, the sole purpose of which was to reach this conclusion: "There is no such thing as a "Soft" Zionist."
I pointed out (quite correctly) that Uri Avnery, a man who is most definitely a "Soft" Zionist.
QED. "Soft" Zionists exist, ergo, you are wrong to claim that they do not exist.
"Debate the contents of my previous post, or provide some truths of your own."
I just did. Twice, in fact.
"I'd luv to read them."
You just did. Twice, in fact.
Posted by: Johnboy | Dec 1, 2011 5:11:11 AM | 38
Being one of the new kids on the block, I was hesitant to treat your ridiculous "rebuttal" to my earlier post with the contempt I believed it deserved, Johnboy. Afterall, you appear to be comfortably ensconced here while I'm still learning the ropes. And rules... But I can't allow you to shapeshift, bob and weave and go all hoity-toity on me - not without a further challenge to your straw man arguments.
Wasn't it you who typed: "You only have to read any of the statements of Uri Avnery to understand that THERE ARE ZIONISTS WHO SEEK ONLY A PLACE IN THE SUN FOR JEWS - A JEWISH NATIONAL HOME, IN THE TRUE SENSE OF THOSE WORDS - who utterly reject the notion that this necessarily means the subjugation or expulsion of The Other."? (emphasis added)
Claiming to have debated the contents of my post isn't the same thing as actually having done so. Using Mr. Avnery's quote as a defence of your position that there are indeed "soft" Zionists is ABSURD if you're suggesting that Zionism's criminal thirst for Palestinian land is a "soft" form of Zionist terrorism if the words used to defend their theft are as "noble" as the ones you've chosen to use to defend the indefensible.
"THERE ARE ZIONISTS WHO SEEK ONLY A PLACE IN THE SUN FOR JEWS - A JEWISH NATIONAL HOME, IN THE TRUE SENSE OF THOSE WORDS."
This a defence of racism. Of exclusion. It is a mindless defence of 70 years of criminal behaviour. Lipstick on a PIG. And anyone who thinks this is a convincing refutation of my original post is either a fool or a propagandist.
Which are you, Johnboy?
Posted by: arthurdecco | Dec 1, 2011 9:57:20 AM | 39
I should have typed, "Using Mr. Avnery's IMAGINARY quote as a defence of your position...
Posted by: arthurdecco | Dec 1, 2011 10:09:10 AM | 40
"But I can't allow you to shapeshift, bob and weave and go all hoity-toity on me - not without a further challenge to your straw man arguments."
Logic is clearly not your strength.
The original claim from Lysander that you found so objectionable was this: "I suspect that a lot of soft Zionists act as gate keepers."
I *KNOW* that this is what you found objectionable, because I can *SEE* your conclusion: "There is no such thing as a "Soft" Zionist."
After all, it's up there in Black And White.
Q: Now, how did your reach your conclusion?
A: By means of a non-sequitur.
Read your original post, and you'll see that your concluding paragraph ("There is no such thing as a "Soft" Zionist.") is preceded by an irrelevent potted history of how the Jews got their numbers up into the millions (i.e. by converting the Kazars to Judaism).
How you can derive the current demographic makeup of the Jews is quite irrelevent to the question of how zionism began, and what form it takes.
They are, indeed, Two Different Questions.
Q: How do I know that?
A: Zionism is not a centuries-old doctrine developed on the steppes of Russia.
Posted by: Johnboy | Dec 1, 2011 4:33:35 PM | 41
Johnboy, Do us both a favour - ignore my posts. Here at the end of our already too-long and wasteful exchange I now consider you to be a dishonest, cherry-picking, propagandizing master of discombobulation based on how you have reacted to my posts on this subject and you apparently consider me to be logic-challenged and in all likelihood an anti-Semite (although you haven't yet raised that sorry canard other than elliptically).
There will be no meeting of the minds between us. Let's just agree to disagree and get on with it.
But before I sign off for the last time on this ridiculous back and forth I'd like to ask you what your straw man statement, "Zionism is not a centuries-old doctrine developed on the steppes of Russia." has to do with anything I wrote or how you suggesting that those words were the point of my post disproves or discredits anything I actually wrote:
"ZIONISM is a racist, murderous and hate-filled supremacist philosophy ADOPTED BY THE OFFSPRING OF (emphasis added) a genetically pre-disposed-to-psychotic-personality-disorders minor middle-eastern tribe whose ranks were swelled during the early middle ages by becoming the state religion of the Khazars who then dispersed throughout Europe when their Russian vassals had finally had enough of them and drove them out." That was what I typed.
Making dumb statements up so that you can attribute them to your intellectual opponents is not an sound method of winning an argument or of convincing intelligent fence-sitters to support your POV. ...just sayin'
Now I really am done with you. You've shown me what kind of person you are and where your motivations lie. I don't have time for people like you when there are so many other people commenting here who appear to be informed, intelligent and honest.
Posted by: arthurdecco | Dec 1, 2011 5:50:01 PM | 42
"Here at the end of our already too-long and wasteful exchange I now consider you to be a dishonest, cherry-picking, propagandizing master of discombobulation based on how you have reacted to my posts on this subject and you apparently consider me to be logic-challenged"
I do not know how many times I have to point out that it is you who is attempting to Change The Subject.
Here is The Subject Under Discussion.....
Lysander: I worry sometimes about the Soft Zionists.
Arthur: There is no such thing as a Soft Zionist!
John: Nonsense, of course there are.
Note that in the above exchange one argument LOGICALLY follows the other, as befits three people who are attempting to stick to the topic.
Here are claasic examples of attempts to Change The Subject:
a) The Genetic Predisposition of Kazars.
b) Judaism's brief period in the Middle Ages as a proletyzing religion.
c) Russia's exasperation that the result of that proletyzing was A Bunch Of Tribal Troublemakers.
d) How all that resulted in - and inevitably defined - a 19th century political philosphy known as "zionism"
All are irrelevent, because the question that is actually before us is this one:
Q: Are there people who can only be described as "soft zionists"? Yes? Or No?
That is a question that can definitely be answered with "Yes, there are zionists who reject any notion that they must follow a racist, murderous and hate-filled supremacist agenda."
Once that is demonstrated (Exhibit A: Uri Avnery) then the only possible conclusion to reach is this: I am correct, you are wrong, and all the rest of your lamentable posts are merely irrelevent padding.
"and in all likelihood an anti-Semite (although you haven't yet raised that sorry canard other than elliptically)."
Oh, the irony: that little straw man is straight out of the Hasbarah Handbook.
Posted by: Johnboy | Dec 1, 2011 7:09:11 PM | 43
"ZIONISM is a racist, murderous and hate-filled supremacist philosophy ADOPTED BY THE OFFSPRING OF (emphasis added) a genetically pre-disposed-to-psychotic-personality-disorders minor middle-eastern tribe whose ranks were swelled during the early middle ages by becoming the state religion of the Khazars"
That statement is factually incorrect, in addition to being irrelevent to the question of wether (or not) there can be such a thing as "Soft Zionists".
Zionism originated with the Ashkenazi Jews, who are Germanic in origin. That's why they are called the Ashkenazi: The German Jews.
They are not the lineal descendents of the Kazars.
So sorry, but while the Kazars may have been many things, "Germanic" they were not....
Posted by: Johnboy | Dec 1, 2011 7:24:31 PM | 44
*sigh* sustained classic abusive ad hominem attacks, venomous, hate filled illogical rants, and yet you 'claim' to align with "... so many other people commenting here who appear to be informed, intelligent and honest." ???
Perhaps you should cease feeding it, only encourages 'em ;)
Posted by: Outraged | Dec 1, 2011 7:31:16 PM | 45
"Perhaps you should cease feeding it, only encourages 'em ;)"
Care to discuss the substance of the argument, Outraged? Or are you satisfied with supporting the side that more accurately reflects your own prejudiced views irrespective of the facts?
...My gawd! You people start crawling out of the woodwork everywhere the moment anyone challenges the Status Quo, don't you?
Give it Up!!!! It's NOT Working!!!! ...At least it's not working with SMART and INFORMED people anymore.
Posted by: arthurdecco | Dec 1, 2011 10:16:39 PM | 46
"My gawd! You people start crawling out of the woodwork everywhere the moment anyone challenges the Status Quo, don't you?"
What "challenge" to the "status quo" are you referring to, Arthur?
1) Your claim that zionism can only be a "racist, murderous and hate-filled supremacist philosophy"?
2) Your claim that zionism was adopted by the descendents of a "genetically pre-disposed-to-psychotic-personality-disorders minor middle-eastern tribe"?
3) Your claim that this gentically unhinged middle-eastern tribe originated in the Kazar state, only to be dispersed the length and breadth of Europe?
Or is it your claim that *because* of all of the above there can be no "soft zionists"?
The funny thing is this, and the humour is two-fold:
a) Not one of your "facts" 1-3 is factually correct
b) Even if they were all 100% accurate (and, again, they are not) none of them necessarily "prove" your proposition that there can not be a "soft" version of zionism.
Such zionists exist. You only need to open your eyes to see them.
Posted by: Johnboy | Dec 1, 2011 10:43:13 PM | 47
yer weird, johnnie.
Posted by: arthurdecco | Dec 1, 2011 10:53:24 PM | 48
okay, okay, you've established yourself as a representative of the Powers That Be, johnnie! So what's the next step for you?
Posted by: arthurdecco | Dec 1, 2011 11:02:49 PM | 49
"yer weird, johnnie."
You're just plain wrong, Arthie.
You imposed yourself into this talkback with a post in which:
Your "facts" were wrong.
Your "conclusion" was wrong.
And the "weirdest" thing about that is that your conclusions being wrong had nothing whatsoever to do with your facts being wrong, precisely because your original post was nothing but a two-paragraph non-sequitor.
How weird is that, heh?
Posted by: Johnboy | Dec 1, 2011 11:06:56 PM | 50
"okay, okay, you've established yourself as a representative of the Powers That Be, johnnie! "
Why do I have a sinking feeling about who you believe those "Powers That Be" might... errr.... be?
After all, I appear to be in the bizarre situation of being their familiar even though I have never offered my services to them.
"So what's the next step for you?"
I imagine that rather depends upon where you want to take this.
I am fairly comfortable with my position so far, which I believe to be in stark contrast to your excellent impersonation of a frog on a hotplate i.e. lots of hopping around, but all to little effect.
So, please, do carry on....
Posted by: Johnboy | Dec 1, 2011 11:37:03 PM | 51
Johnboy, impressive as I remember you from days long gone at haaretz talkbacks (ah, those were the days). Taking all on - the good, the bad and measly.
The profile for Silverstein is an interesting one - he is what I'd call a Mossad afficcionado, and a bit of an intelligence groupie. He is simply fascinated by intelligence operations, and what better one to take on than Mossad? it's a well known frame of mind, one that was most evident when that operation on Syria's "nuclear" site was undertaken by the mighty israeli forces _ i remember the heated exchanges on the talkback (different times, different handle). The same kind of false intelligence was being spread then all over the net at the time. Remember those days? much sound, moucho fury, significance nada.
Back to Richard - he has had considerable success disclosing the dire details of dastardly goings-on in israel, taking good advantage of Israel's nonsensical gag orders. Along the way he's gathered quite a few sources, and no doubt, some of those are more in the know than others (Israelis - to a man/woman/child - are totally fascinated by their own intelligence services, and embellishment bamixing a dash of speculation and a pinvh of gossip is all too common). On this event - the Hezbollah explosion, he has been had - probably by someone who spent much time building his credentials. That's how it's done, usually. Note also that virtually all of his sources are Israeli. rarely Arab. But then that's his gig, and I'm not one to quibble.
I believe that he knows he has been had (happened before, as he knows well). But it's too embarrassing to reveal and he can't bring himself to disbelieve a source he came to trust for feeding him scoops. Because if he does, then much of what the same source has told him before will come into doubt. On top of that he's known to have a bit of a thin skin - even towards friends, and previously appreciated commenters. It doesn't take much.
Not to worry johnboy. Just keep plugging your ware. Who's to say that if you had a blog you wouldn't fall into one of the many traps awaiting bloggers-in-good-standing? It's very hard to admit one is wrong and even harder to accept that truth is sometimes all too pedestrian - especially when one has garnered a following.
Posted by: Merlin2 | Dec 2, 2011 10:10:21 PM | 52
Typos bad. My excuse for not having a blog. and a good one it is indeed.
PS hey moon - how about an edit function?
Posted by: Merlin2 | Dec 2, 2011 10:12:12 PM | 53
"You're just plain wrong, Arthie."
I may be. But you certainly haven't proven I am wrong, Abe. In fact, with every utterance you have proven yourself to be more on the wrong side of factual history.
Howzit feel to be always wrong, Abe? ...about everything?
Posted by: arthurdecco | Dec 5, 2011 12:12:11 AM | 54
"I may be. But you certainly haven't proven I am wrong,"
You claimed that zionism derived from the descendants of the Kazars.
That is demonstrably wrong, precisely because zionism orginated amongst the Ashkenazi.
The Ashkenazi are descendants of the Germanic Jews, not the Turkic Jews.
You. Are. Wrong.
You also claimed that:
BECAUSE zionism derived from the descendents of the Kazars, and
BECAUSE the Kazars were generically predisposed "to-psychotic-personality-disorders"
THEN it is quite impossible for there to be a "soft" zionism.
THEREFORE according to you there can be only one form of zionism i.e. a "racist, murderous and hate-filled supremacist philosophy".
Are you still making that claim, Artie?
Posted by: Johnboy | Dec 5, 2011 5:18:35 AM | 55
"You claimed that zionism derived from the descendants of the Kazars."
I claimed no such thing, Abe. Read carefully what I wrote but with your lips moving this time.
…It might help…
The fact is Zionism is a cult within Judaism that firmly believes in their own intellectual, racist and militaristic superiority despite their unimpressive performance in the real world on all these levels - just not on the pretend one created by our beloved MSM, which is wholly-owned by the same Perps, and carried forward into the Real World in Real Time by Hasbarabots like you, Abe.
You are electronic back ground noise. Something to be expected when electronic clutter is an epidemic.
You paid propagandistic people are scary. Scary. SCARY, Abe.
Because you’re so dishonest about Everything. That's why.
Posted by: arthurdecco | Dec 6, 2011 11:32:18 PM | 56
Me: "You claimed that zionism derived from the descendants of the Kazars."
You: "I claimed no such thing,"
You again, but much earlier: "ZIONISM is a racist, murderous and hate-filled supremacist philosophy adopted by the offspring of a genetically pre-disposed-to-psychotic-personality-disorders minor middle-eastern tribe whose ranks were swelled during the early middle ages by becoming the state religion of the Khazars who then dispersed throughout Europe when their Russian vassals had finally had enough of them and drove them out."
Now, it is axiomatic that SOMEBODY had to came up with the concept of zionism.
So why don't you re-read that lamentable paragraph of yours, and then *you* can point out to *me* where you finger anyone other than the descendants of the Kazars as the originators of zionism.
After all, the only other people who gets even a passing mention are the Russians, and I'm pretty certain you aren't claiming that zionism is a Russian concept....
Posted by: Johnboy | Dec 7, 2011 4:50:35 AM | 57